Argument: Increasing adaptation aid does not diminish mitigation
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
- Debate: Increase UN Annex I aid for climate change adaptation
- Debate: Climate change mitigation vs adaptation
Pielke Jr., R. "LA Times on Adaptation." LA Times. March 26, 2008: "Lots of adaptation is inevitable, in part thanks to the success of the deniers and delayers. The question is whether we are going to have lots of (avoidable) suffering too, because we failed to do enough mitigation fast enough. And this brings us to one of the biggest howlers I’ve ever seen in the entire climate debate, from Pielke’s recent post:
If mitigation advocates do not like being told that their misleading arguments poorly serve policy debate, well, they should probably try to come up with a more robust set of arguments. Arguing that support for adaptation undercuts support for mitigation is a little like making the argument that support for eating healthy and getting exercise (adapting one’s lifestyle) undercuts support for heart surgery research (mitigating the effects of heart disease). Obviously we should seek both adaptation and mitigation in the context of heart disease."