Do people argue for adaptation-only? Adaptation is necessary but not sufficient.
There’s a bunch of people arguing for every possible bad idea out there.
They are trying to make it into a ‘you’ problem. People who endorse this view imagine they will do fine in an adaptation-only scenario.
It would’ve been nice to adapt to it 40+ years ago when small changes could’ve been major today.
I mean, it’s already happening so we’re going to have to. Being said, the idea that “just adapt” can be the whole strategy will literally kill billions of people.
I wouldn’t say that’s opinion so much as objective fact. We evolved in Earth’s natural climate to be able to survive on this planet. If the planet’s reaching a point where we can no longer naturally survive on it that’s a major problem.
Mitigate first as an emergency priority. Adapt later as a necessary reaction.
Agree with the article except for the very end. The catch-22 we’re in is if we don’t stop emissions (forget reduce, we need to cease it 100%) to slow climate change then we’re not going to be able to even adapt, but if we actually go against the world machine of economic and other growth and stop emissions, that will kill us too since we’re so dependent on it. What do you do when any result is bad? I guess the one that seems the least worse in the short run.
What do you do when any result is bad?
“Nothing” seems to be the consensus.
I wouldn’t say that. The EU and US are both starting to cut emissions (modulo the big swings caused by COVID). It’s more that the world doesn’t look likely to drop emissions to zero soon enough to prevent some seriously major damage.
Removed by mod
