Adaptation To Global Climate Change Is An Essential Response To A Warming Planet
Pastor Dale Morgan
Adaptation To Global Climate Change Is An Essential Response To A
Warming Planet*
"To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers
that climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast,
defining adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a
focus both on reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations
to climate variability and change, rather than tinkering at the margins
of both emissions and impacts.
by Staff Writers
TEMPE AZ (SPX) Feb 09, 2007
Temperatures are rising on Earth, which is heating up the debate over
global warming and the future of our planet, but what may be needed most
to combat global warming is a greater focus on adapting to our changing
planet, says a team of science policy experts writing in this week's
Nature magazine.
While many consider it taboo, adaptation to global climate change needs
to be recognized as just as important as "mitigation," or cutting back,
of greenhouse gases humans pump into Earth's atmosphere. The science
policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature, say
adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future
for humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions.
"New ways of thinking about, talking about and acting on climate change
are necessary if a changing society is to adapt to a changing climate,"
the researchers state in "Lifting the Taboo on Adaptation."
The policy experts include Daniel Sarewitz, director of Arizona State
University's Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes; Roger Pielke
Jr., University of Colorado, Boulder; Gwyn Prins, London School of
Economics, London, England, and Columbia University, New York; and Steve
Rayner of the James Martin Institute at Oxford University, Oxford, England.
Sarewitz and his colleagues argue that the time to elevate adaptation to
the same level of attention and effort as the more popular mitigation of
greenhouse gases is now, and that the future of the planet demands
realistic actions to help the survival of humans.
"The obsession with researching and reducing the human effects on
climate has obscured the more important problems of how to build more
resilient and sustainable societies, especially in poor regions and
countries," Sarewitz said.
"Adaptation has been portrayed as a sort of selling out because it
accepts that the future will be different from the present," Sarewitz
added. "Our point is the future will be different from the present no
matter what, so to not adapt is to consign millions to death and
disruption."
Adaptation is the process by which societies prepare for and minimize
the negative effects of a variety of future environmental stresses on
society, Sarewitz said. Mitigation is the effort to slow and reduce the
negative impacts of climate change by slowing the accumulation of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"The key difference is that adaptation is the process by which societies
make themselves better able to cope with an uncertain future, whereas
mitigation is an effort to control just one aspect of that future by
controlling the behavior of the climate," Sarewitz said.
Policy discussions on climate change in the 1980s included adaptation as
an important option for society. But over the past two decades, the idea
of adapting to global environmental changes has become problematic for
those advocating emissions reductions and was "treated with the same
distaste as the religious right reserves for sex education in schools -
both constitute ethical compromises that will only encourage dangerous
experimentation with undesired behavior," the policy experts state.
Over the years, mitigation was favored as the global response to climate
change, and adaptation seemed relegated to local responses to the
specific changes brought on by global warming. Major global efforts to
cut emissions were convened in the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. In those efforts,
mitigation was talked about in the grandest of levels and adaptation as
only having a limited impact.
As a result, adaptation was often looked upon in a negative sense, to be
used if the grander plans failed. All the while, the effects of global
warming were beginning to be felt, most notably in poorer countries and
regions.
"To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers
that climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast,
defining adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a
focus both on reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations
to climate variability and change, rather than tinkering at the margins
of both emissions and impacts.
"By introducing sustainable development into the framework, one is
forced to consider the missed opportunities of an international regime
that for the past 15 years or more has focused enormous intellectual,
political, diplomatic and fiscal resources on mitigation, while
downplaying adaptation by presenting it in such narrow terms so as to be
almost meaningless," they add. "Until adaptation is institutionalized at
the level of intensity and investment at least equal to the UNFCCC and
Kyoto, climate impacts will continue to mount unabated, regardless of
even the most effective cuts in greenhouse gas emissions."