Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable
This is a simple one - climate change is happening and is unstoppable, so why waste money on mitigation and spend it on adaptation.
Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by explaining the difference between mitigation (which means reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (which is reducing the impacts of climate change while doing nothing about reducing emissions).
The underlying assumptions for this position include that Australia is too small to have any impact on emissions (something that he repudiates in fallacy 2).
The second assumption is that expenditure on mitigation is expensive and ineffective and will not reduce the cost of adaptation. Big MD responds as follows: if the global mitigation effort is sufficient enough to avoid catastrophic tipping points, some mitigation is much better than no mitigation. That is, a 2 degrees rise in temperature will have a significantly smaller impact on the earth than a 3 degrees rise - so why just go with the worst possible outcome?
The third assumption is that the cost of adaptation will be below that of mitigation. For Big MD this is a ridiculous argument - and I have to say, I agree with him. He uses the following example to make the point:
One strategy of adaptation is building more dams in areas where droughts happen; as MD points out, however, what good is a dam if there is not rain brought on by climate change?
MD also quotes the Stern Review: where it notes that the cost of adaptation if climate change continues unabated, the cost of adaptation will be much more expensive.
The solution is quite simple: for some countries to take the lead and make changes. For them, they will be in a better position to take advantage of new clean industries that are going to emerge. In other words, time to show some leadership!
3 comments:
'Waiting and seeing' is not really an option, is it?
I've said this before, but I'll just have to see whether our leaders will act responsibly, with regards to long-term adjustments of society's habits and responsible 'green' living, or if political re-election and showmanship is all Copenhagen shall produce. I prefer to remain cynical, for politicians seem to only want to kiss babies cheeks.
Over the next few years, aspects of climate change probably will be unstoppable, though our responsibility, and hence actions in such regards, do not have to be. I'll be watching this conference closely but shall remain neutral... for now.
It's like the problems with the health system. We need an acute response to a chronic problem. The longer we wait the greater the burden on society. The opportunity cost of inaction has surpassed the tipping point. Let's hope a global solution is reached shortly, until then we embrace local action.
I'd never considered those two distinct areas... mitigation and adaptation... within the whole of climate change strategies. Theyt are two distinct different approaches, and unfortunately the picture i get from this book and the world around is we are working on the latter.
In one way, Yes, it may be visibly more cost effective now to do that but its like seeing a wound and putting a pair of black shades on to solve the problem, it diverts the attention from the real problem, the wound is still there!!! Its like a pin-prick hole in a balloon, if you don't cover it up the balloon will deflate eventually, theres no doubt.
I think one of the problems is right now this is being treated as a marketing opportunity by NGO's rather than a serious problem. Whatever 'green' products their creating are good, but their still coming from the cost effective pollution overloaded factories they always have. The Government under Rudd is making progress with the Kyoto protocal and all, BUT they need some solid action to get an image to the people of how real this issue is, because the alternate image from the market economy is simply a consumer message.
I think also the problem with activism on this issue is that people don't like to be harrassed by extreme 'left wing' activists, because the way they come accross seems to be always so revolutionary. I agree with a lot of what they stand for and are trying to achieve, and haqve previously worked with certain organisations. But waht i find is their approach can often come accross as being more about being an activist, and less about the issues. There's also the other extreme though of the mainstreamed commentry on climate change which is muted within generall commentary and can not stand up for itself. I don't know what the solution is but some sort of middle ground approach by activists without compromise, a role played by NGO's that is more than just profateering, and a more visible, active role of governemnt.
Wow... this book and your blog really got me thinking, after i've finished your dam exam (hehe) I might have to grab a copy,
Thanks for the thought provocation, as always ;)
Post a Comment