On Feb 9, 7:24 am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point that Indonesia needs to implement flood control seems
> totally beside the point that the world needs to make sure that the
> coal stays in the ground until someone comes up with a way to capture
> and dispose of the carbon. I see not the remotest practical reason why
> these questions have much overlap at the policy level. I can't imagine
> the purpose of the linkage.
Pielke's paper is Lomborgian in that it establishes a false dichotomy.
Mitigation has "prevented" adaptation, so you can become a champion of
adaptation as a counterbalance to the nastiness involved in
mitigation.
Near term adaptation strategies are likely to be fairly subtle (though
land use change policy can be highly political, cf arguments in NZ
between forest owners and govt about carbon credits and deforestation
charges), and therefore unlikely to be headline grabbers. Pielke's
point is, in the sense that it draws attention to the issue, a good
one - but his framing of it is unhelpful.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
