None of us make our best decisions when we’re in a state of panic. And the worst way to respond to climate change is to assume there’s nothing we can do to slow it down.
It makes sense that an adaptation expert would push for more investment in adaptation. Also, adaptation is an easy sell as the western world starts experiencing first hand accelerating climate disasters. However, it is usually smarter to tackle the underlying problem rather than just consequences. For people who have bought the line that society cannot afford to transition from fossil fuels, then it might make sense to switch investment to adaptation. However, I suspect that messages about giving up on mitigation in favor of adaptation are simply the latest of many fossil fuel industry strategies to deflect blame and slow transition.
Thanks, Suzanne. I'd say anyone who understands the climate emergency should be pushing for more investment in adaptation. In G20 countries like Canada, and so much more in developing countries on the front lines of the crisis that face by far the worst impacts, after doing the least to cause it.
But not at the expense of attacking the root causes of the problem and driving emissions down by all means at our disposal. That's why I really appreciated the more balanced prescription we received in the quote from Ryan Ness at the Canadian Climate Institute.
I'll leave it to the Intact Centre to respond directly to your implied question about a fossil fuel connection. But we've seen no indication that that's the case, and we certainly weren't suggesting it with this post.
It makes sense that an adaptation expert would push for more investment in adaptation. Also, adaptation is an easy sell as the western world starts experiencing first hand accelerating climate disasters. However, it is usually smarter to tackle the underlying problem rather than just consequences. For people who have bought the line that society cannot afford to transition from fossil fuels, then it might make sense to switch investment to adaptation. However, I suspect that messages about giving up on mitigation in favor of adaptation are simply the latest of many fossil fuel industry strategies to deflect blame and slow transition.
Thanks, Suzanne. I'd say anyone who understands the climate emergency should be pushing for more investment in adaptation. In G20 countries like Canada, and so much more in developing countries on the front lines of the crisis that face by far the worst impacts, after doing the least to cause it.
But not at the expense of attacking the root causes of the problem and driving emissions down by all means at our disposal. That's why I really appreciated the more balanced prescription we received in the quote from Ryan Ness at the Canadian Climate Institute.
I'll leave it to the Intact Centre to respond directly to your implied question about a fossil fuel connection. But we've seen no indication that that's the case, and we certainly weren't suggesting it with this post.