> By suggesting we can talk about adapting to non-change, you are making > the conversation even fuzzier. What I've learned from this is that we > need to define our terms better. James, I don't think your use of the > word "adapt" is really all that adaptive. It can hardly be placed in > opposition to mitigation if there is nothing to mitigate, so it only > further muddies the waters, even though it is a perfectly ordinary use > of the word without that context. >
I may be misunderstanding, but there seems to be parallels here with Eli's call for "amelioration"? http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/04/third-way-eli-and-ethon-have-been-doing.html Cheers, Adam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
