Al Gore: "I've changed my mind."

[August]

Adapt or die.

Environmentalists have long said the world should concentrate on preventing climate change, not adapting to it. That is changing.

New approaches to climate change | Adapt or die | The Economist

“I USED to think adaptation subtracted from our efforts on prevention. But I’ve changed my mind,” says Al Gore, a former American vice-president and Nobel prize-winner. “Poor countries are vulnerable and need our help.” His words reflect a shift in the priorities of environmentalists and economists.

[reality]

It's inevitable that this would happen eventually, but I guess the key issue is whether environmentalists now regard prevention as something that cannot be realised.

[August]

With smoke in our eyes, we can't see the fog - National News - National - General - The Canberra Times

Ross Garnaut, the Government's independent climate change adviser, recently posed a highly disturbing question. Is solving climate change too hard? The daily debate in Australia and around the world made one think so, the economics professor wrote in July. "It is too complex. The special interests are too numerous, powerful and intense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

And I think: how can we be discussing the issue of climate change policy making, on any level (local, national, regional, global), without constantly having Dwight D. Eisenhower's old concept of the military-industrial complex not in the back but at the front of our minds?

But okay: thinking about that all the time, oh well: I guess that is a little bit too inconvenient for many of us, am I right?

Is it bedtime for democracy, no? And people rule, O.K.?

[Richard]

Adaptation is been routinely built into Government policies now...I do it all the time in my area of work (flood risk management). Prevention is pretty unlikely now IMO.

[Kaabi]

Climate change is already happening. The severe effects of it can be prevented, and the current effects can be reversed, but only by sweeping changes in the world's social and energy policies.

[ashy]

Well I suppose it's better to try to swim to shore than think about learning to swim when your boat sinks.

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Kaabi

Climate change is already happening. The severe effects of it can be prevented, and the current effects can be reversed, but only by sweeping changes in the world's social and energy policies.

Thanks for the sweeping generalization based on absolutely nothing.

[UrbanFarmboy]

Is anyone really usprised by this? The matra that begun in the 60's and 70's about global cooling failed to exite change, global warming was found to be a horrible analogy and was eventually changed to climate change and now you have a shift from prevention to adaptation.

While there may be consequences for our action with respect to a changing climate, the overall goal og climate change alarmists has always been zero growth and wealth distribution.

I will be the first to say that a developed third world woudl go a long way to avoiding many of our societal ills, but I will also be the first to say that the third world, especially Africa is not prepared for an infusion of capitol on the level being contemplated.

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by UrbanFarmboy

Is anyone really usprised by this? The matra that begun in the 60's and 70's about global cooling failed to exite change, global warming was found to be a horrible analogy and was eventually changed to climate change and now you have a shift from prevention to adaptation.

While there may be consequences for our action with respect to a changing climate, the overall goal og climate change alarmists has always been zero growth and wealth distribution.

I will be the first to say that a developed third world woudl go a long way to avoiding many of our societal ills, but I will also be the first to say that the third world, especially Africa is not prepared for an infusion of capitol on the level being contemplated.

Its all a commie plot!

Ahh the pieces fit, how could I be so stupid.

[reng]

The problem is that the problem is too hard. There isn't a solution (yet) that is tasteful to politicians, businesmen or the ordinary tax payer.

Most solutions that have been put out to date mean that we have to either pay more (not good for tax payers or politicians) or we consume less (not good for businessmen).

So instead, there is A$1b of clean coal research funding out there to try and bury a gas so we can go on burning coal to create electricity. A process that loses 60% of the energy in the coal before the end-user gets to waste it by not turning off their lightbulbs/compter/tv when they aren't using them.

I don't think there is a solution using existing technology. There are partial solutions, like solar and wind, but they can't provide a base load.