Mitigation vs. Adaptation: Why we can't afford to wait and see

One of the major difficulties facing anyone trying to articulate climate policy is dealing with uncertainty. I should stress to all you sceptics out there that I do not mean uncertainty surrounding the scientific fundamentals - we know that global warming is happening, and that mankind's activities are the cause of it - but rather how quickly or severely climate change will affect us (though early indications present a very bleak picture indeed).

This uncertainty arises in part from the lags associated with CO2 emissions. Estimates suggest that we may face a 40 year delay before the true warming effect of green house gas emissions begins to be felt. At the moment, we are only experiencing warming from 1960s emissions. For this reason, it may be tempting to look at a lack of immediate cause and effect as a demonstration of uncertainty within the science itself, leading one to the assumption that more investigation and more time might be needed to properly evaluate the potential risks. Moreover, there is a vocal minority, perhaps susceptible to this view, that would go so far as to suggest that we are capable of adapting to any change that does present itself. This is a profound mistake.

The difficulty with the wait and see approach extends directly from the fact that it refuses to acknowledge the reality of the cause until it accounts for its effect, but, as I just mentioned, by the time this effect makes itself known it may well be too late to stop some of its worst consequences. Even if we stopped emitting now, we still face the possibility of a temperature increase between 1C and 3C above pre-industrial levels. If we continue to emit whilst waiting for further evidence to present itself, we will likely reach temperatures even higher than this. We know more than enough to suggest that the risk of inaction is far too high.

When you combine the wait and see approach with a focus on adaptation, the problem is amplified. To argue the case for adaptation you would probably need to demonstrate that the risks of waiting are relatively slight, and, given the evidence at our disposal, this is a very difficult claim to maintain under scrutiny. On the other hand, if you acknowledge the risks, you then have to claim that we would be able to adapt to the changes that significantly higher temperatures could bring. This is also extremely difficult.

If we pursued a business-as-usual approach CO2e concentrations would likely reach about 750ppm by the end of this century. This entails about a 50% chance of a mean global temperature increase of 5C. The potential devestation unleashed by such a rapid surge in temperature is biblical in proportion. At that temperature, most, if not all, of the ice and snow in the world would melt causing the seas to rise exponentially. Bangladesh and Florida would be submerged, along with numerous islands and coastal regions, Souther Europe would become a desert, and agricultural land the world over would be redrawn requiring a radical alteration of food systems. The nation of Kiribati in the Pacific ocean is currently in talks with the Fijian government to relocate its entire population due to rising sea levels. Kiribati has a population of 100,000, Bangladesh alone has a population close to 150 million. It seems arrogant to imagine that human ingenuity would be able to deal safely with the kind of migration and famine that dramatic warming could entail.

Perhaps what troubles me most about the adaptation argument is that it seems to appeal to pride; a sort of humans vs. nature scenario in which we pit human technology against natural forces in the belief that we can successfully overcome whatever challenges the earth throws at us. This is never a battle we are likely to win, and succesfully warding off global warming will require more than a degree of humility, as well as an acknowledgement that we cannot hope to outsmart natural forces at this level of intensity.

Mitigation not only makes sense environmentally, it also makes sense economically. The scale of investment required to mitigate climate change is significant, but it is well within our capability. Nicholas Stern suggests that we require investment of around 2% of GDP annually to limit our temperature increase to around 2C, a moderate amount compared to the possible costs entailed by the consequences of inaction. James Hansen suggests a very different approach, calling for a carbon tax on fossil fuels which would be redistributed amongst populations without any interference from government. Though these suggestions come from very different ends of the political spectrum, they are united by an acknowledgement that immediate action must be taken to counteract potentially monstrous costs further down the line.

Whichever way you look at it, barring a remarkable scientific or technological discovery, mitigation, pursued swiftly and emphatically, seems to be the only sensible option. Those who place their faith in adaptation simply fail to appreciate the degree of danger with which we are confronted. Unless we face up to our responsibility to future generations, we may well leave them with a planet devoid of the environmental and economic riches we take for granted.