I have been preaching this stance for years and in every global warming thread here. Vindication!


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10035-kyoto-protocol-adapt-or-fry.html


Kyoto protocol: Adapt or fry
10:00 10 September 2006
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Michael Reilly


Is it all over for Kyoto? Should we accept that global warming is inevitable and plan accordingly?

Yes, says Frances Cairncross, president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BA) which held its annual festival in Norwich, UK, this week.

On Monday Cairncross described the Kyoto protocol as "ineffectual" and called for the world to accept that "a hotter, drier world" is coming - even if everyone fulfils their obligations under Kyoto and pegs levels of carbon dioxide back below the 1990 baseline. "Adaptation policies have had far less attention than mitigation," she told the BA.

“A hotter drier world is coming even if everyone fulfils their obligations under Kyoto”Now Cairncross is saying the UK should prepare for the inevitable by developing drought-resistant crops, constructing flood defences and perhaps even banning dwellings close to sea level. "We cannot relocate the Amazon or insulate coral reefs, so we need mitigation too, but the [UK] government could and should put in place an adaption strategy straight away," she said.

"Cairncross is right that the Kyoto protocol alone is not enough to solve the problem of climate change," says John Hay, of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany. "But adaptation is already part of the parent convention, although it's true that more funds are needed to help governments."

Adaptation will be discussed in November at the convention's next meeting, in Nairobi, Kenya

In about 50 years, Canada is gonna start looking like a mighty comfortable place

People will be forced to adapt no matter what. That's not so much the issue, really. The question is, how much will they be forced to adapt? If we dont make attempts to curb our contributions to the global warming problems, then we will be forced to "adapt" a lot more, with far greater and more devastating consequences.

In 50 years, the US will invade in order to take your water and trees.

We're already having disputes with the US over both of those resources now.

i don't know how any informed person could think kyoto was sufficient to solve this problem, but regardless it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

Climate change is going to be a curious thing. Does a model exist for predictions regarding what effects it will have? I know Europe will supposedly be facing another mini-ice age....similar to the one they suffered during the black plague. Meanwhile, all those coastal cities people love are going to be fucked in a way only pornstars truly understand.

the predicted outcomes really depend on what scenario (basically, how much CO2 you think we will be emitting in the future) you input into the model. basically whether you work under the proviso that we will emit x amount of CO2 in the next 50 years, or xxx amount. So there's a lot of variability. Here's a report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; a UN organisation) on some regional effects for different countries, hope this helps http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/spmpdf/region-e.pdf

I just read my 30th book on global climate change....this one by John Lovelock. I should celebrate. I have now read 17 books for, 13 books against. I should try and list the titles and authors, but life is keeping me busy.

The thing to me is that the arguments against always seem so sound, but when I look at the historical data or actually do my own examination of the numbers there's just no way around the reality that the planet is shifting. Whether or not humanity is the cause, I feel, is irrelevant, because (as Lovelock and others point out) even if we began changing now the shift would continue past the breaking point on its own momentum. The question now is, how do we survive? Not as a species, because we WILL survive as a species....but as individuals, because a lot of us won't, and it won't matter what caused it.

Nonchalantly?

Thanks for that link. It contains excellent evidence for the argument for concentrating resources on adaptation as opposed to global warming prevention.

What really blows my mind is that you situations like New York City, which is extremely vulnerable to a hurricane. Insurances companies estimated >$125 billion in damage from a Cat 3 hurricane. Yet they do not act to try and prevent the loss! They do not demand sea-walls and improved drainage systems that would save them 10's of billions. Why not? It only makes business sense for them to stand up and say look NYC, either be proactive and protect yourselves or don't expect us to pay for your loss.

i guess it's just the 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it' approach, rather than spending a relatively small amount now to potentially save a lot later.
or they're either in denial or banking that it won't happen.