Overview
Increase the emphasis on adaptation and preparedness for climate change, both because it is warranted based on climate change we are already committed to, but also because it could be a back door to a more reality-based dialogue about mitigation.
Participants | For and Against | Related Initiatives
Participants
Carolyn Brouillard
John Casey
Josh Foster
Noha Gaber
Kris Holstrom
Andrew Huemmler
Peter Jipp
Marty Krasney
Clayt Lauter
Emily Levin
Evonne Marzouk
John McQuaid
Stephen Nodvin
Stuart Price
For and against
- In favor: Some believe that a preparedness agenda would trigger actual behavior on the ground because municipalities and other institutions charged with public safety would be prompted to conduct evaluations and scenario analyses, and to quantify needed resources. This activity would refocus people away from debates over the certainty of scientific projections and toward the what-if planning that is routine among professionals engaged in preparedness for a variety of threats to society. This would amount to building “national resilience,” a task that could gain momentum from people’s desire to do something to address the free-floating anxiety that pervades American society after 9/11 and Katrina. It would also level the playing field so that the frequently dramatized economic costs of policy action on climate change can be more fairly compared with the costs of inaction, which would include the need to scale-up adaptation activities.
- Opposed: Some are concerned that a preparedness/adaptation agenda would engender a sense of futility in the public and therefore reduce attention to prevention/mitigation. Moreover, some believe that the budget-constrained realities of the U.S. Congress (and of many states) could preclude real discussion of investing significantly in adaptation or preparedness, thereby inadvertently marginalizing the climate change issue.
Related Initiatives
- EcoEquity - EcoEquity is a research and advocacy organization dedicated to the promotion of a just and adequate solution to the climate crisis. Through its participation in domestic and international networks of both activists and scholars, it argues for a precautionary approach to the prevention of dangerous climate change, and for a global policy architecture that would protect the right to sustainable development. EcoEquity seeks to contribute to a just solution to the climate crisis by emphasizing the importance of equity principles in all aspects of the policy response, by producing political and economic analyses that highlight equity issues, and by developing practical proposals for equitable climate policies.Get involved in this action.
6 comments
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Liz
Although I do believe that risk adaptation is perceived as more of an ill-fated dialogue, it is necessary in this state of global warming. While it is important to get the public involved in tackling climate change, we do need to remain realistic. By telling the public that “we can stop climate change” and neglecting to create an adaptation strategy, we are not doing all that we can to combat climate change. The public needs to realize that adapting to anthropogenic climate change is part of the larger effort to mitigate the effects.
My only problem with an adaptation plan is the speculation that it may exclude the public from understanding/experiencing the realities of climate change. If the decision makers create such a plan, most likely the public will remain somewhat uninvolved. The potential success of the plan will only serve to separate the public futher from climate change’s global effects. If the public cannot see what human actions have caused, they will not take notice of climate change.
That is, of course, complete speculation. But, I think it is worth considering - especially if we are pushing for public conciousness.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
John R. Bermingham
The public must be made aware that adaptation does not mean saying, “OK, temperatures will be hotter,” and then turning up the air conditioning. Adaptation will require air cooling systems to be set at higher levels than they are today and the public must accept this.
Similarly, adaptation does not mean building higher seawalls, but moving inland.
September 4th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Thea Hayes
Adaptation can also include priority shifts in public funding of research, as well as corporate funding and responsible actions. Most of the public does not get involved with vital issues unless they are vital to THEM, personally, and in the meantime those who are aware of this “vitalness” can shift into action that is meaningful. Dialogue is great, but the ice is concurrently MELTING.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:09 am
Gareth Johnston
I’m a director of a business (www.climaterisk.com.au) specifically consulting on adaptation risk. Our clients include insurance providers and banks, superannuation investors, industry, local government and property developers(large scale). A direct consequence of moneterising adaptation costs and developing long range strategic adaptation plans is that clients start to consider mitigation and behavioural change. Mitigation can also be considerably cheaper for most companies than long range less certain adaptation.
In Australia, adaptation is critical for many economic and social systems from agriculture to land use to urban planning. Long range planning is very much a luxury for larger more evolved and financially resilient systems - the most vulnerable groups including indigenous groups haven’t the capacity to adapt. We have a pro bono publico committment to transfer and share knowledge with these groups.
On a local/state government level adaptation is really about choosing which landscape features, infrastructure and environment to protect at the lowest cost.
Maldaptation is considerably expensive! We are keen to build excellence and professional standards in this field. It is so far a complex and expensive process.
October 19th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Samuel Missimer
All good points.
The enormity of the matter overwhelms most, and therefore most people will just push back from the table - and ignore the matter. It’s a coping mechanism, an easy out from a nasty problem.
This makes localization so very important. By breaking out single issues, ones that have a direct, tangible impact on the audience which one is trying to engage, we will stand a better chance of breaking avoidance/inertia.
My work is in New Jersey, an overcrowded and hectic environment on a good day. New Jersey’s shore resorts are directly threatened, and represent the 4th largest economic engine. Still, there is little talk of how vulnerable the shore communities are, even as the insurance carriers drop coverage…
Framing a strictly economic argument has advantages. It removes the ideology of the environmental argument (and environmentalists HAVE been marginalized with great skill) and allows for risk assessment against real, documented numbers.
This is playing out in the corporate spheres as well. Fiscal risk assessment proves to be a strong motivator, and - tactically speaking - allows the argument to be ‘re-framed’ in a manner which can bring previous ‘deniers’ to the game, w/o needing to recant.
Make no mistake, it is past time for advancing acceptance outside of the ‘converted’. We need to embrace whatever specific tactics that might prod people to do the right thing - regardless of the individual underlying motivation.
It’s time for better marketing.
The more ‘buttons’ we can find to press, the better.
April 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Richard Jordan
How do other species adapt? Perhaps we should think of the human-earth community, in Teilhardian terms.
Richard Jordan