Matt Yglesias

14 Responses to “Climate Change Adaptation”

1. bdbd Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

   easy. dress in layers.

2. ThomasH Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

   Presentatinally, it would have been better if the title had indicated it was about US assistance to other countries to adapt to climate change. And while I am a supporter of US assistance for, say, preventing malaria, it struck me as slightly “rationalle of the month” to link this with climate change.

3. Mattyoung Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

   “Of course it would have been better to just get started with the mitigation ten years ago”

   We did start climate mitigation ten years ago, you just do not notice it because equilibrium times for Congress are on the order of multiple decades. But the, progressives knew this when they started. libertarians said that if you prove damages, then sue, an idea that fell by the wayside because the progressives wanted the revenue stream and prevented that action.

4. Tom Fuller Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

   Much more like this, please. Well done CAP and Ms. Manlove.

   One minor point–as IPCC forecasts do not anticipate most of the negative effects for global warming to kick in until 2070, an idea of the time scale for U.S. efforts would be useful. Logically we should be ramping up for a major effort later this century, and addressing food and disease needs now which may be unrelated to climate change. As Manlove explained, making communities resilient to future effects is in our best interests–water, micronutrients, mosquito nets, access to energy and sewage treatment will help the developing world most.

5. Kyle Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

   I completely agree. I will say, though, that climate adaptation is NOT simply a developing/third world concern. Rather, the US needs to take domestic climate adaptation seriously as well. Effects such as increased intensity of precipitation events, increased frequency of local droughts, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, and so forth require a new approach to municipal planning and need to be taken seriously as climate change increasingly becomes a global reality.

6. LaFollette Progressive Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

   I find it fascinating how so many people who are willing to spend billions of tax dollars on frickin’ space lasers, to mitigate the risk of a highly unlikely North Korean first strike, are so blithely dismissive of the risks posed by climate change.

7. kim Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

   We could mitigate if carbon dioxide were the cause of climate change. But it’s not the cause, natural cycles are. So, learn to adapt; we always have, but society has been structurally simpler in the past. By the way, folks, the change we should next adapt to is global cooling. Don’t get sucked into being wrong-footed over a global warming that isn’t happening instead of the global cooling that is happening.
   =========================================

8. kim Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 5:50 pm

   Well, I actually listened to the above link. Kari, the poor deluded thing is behind the times. She still thinks that carbon dioxide is the cause of climate change via ‘global warming’ and that the events to which we’ll have to adapt are worse storms, droughts, and mass migration, presumably from rising sea level. Well, Accumulated Cyclone Energy, the total cyclone and hurricane energy in the world, is at a 30 year low(sorry Chris ‘Storm World’ Mooney, the globe is cooling not warming, sea level rise has plateaued, ice is accumulating at both poles and we far more likely face climate catastrophe from global cooling than from global warming. By the way, sunspots are going to become invisible in another 6 years, and if that presages a new Grand Solar Minimum we may cool for another century. Crop failures from that are going to holocaustic. So, keep up. The world has changed in the last few years and Al Gore is so last century.
   ===============================================

9. SLC Says:
   May 8th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

   Re Kim

   Well, if global cooling which might lead to a repeat of the little ice age is occurring, then Mr. Kim should be in favor of shutting down nuclear power and hydroelectric power plants in favor of more coal burning power plants in order to raise the amount of CO(2) in the atmosphere so as to mitigate the cooling effect. Somehow though, the global cooling proponents never follow through.

10. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    “as IPCC forecasts do not anticipate most of the negative effects for global warming to kick in until 2070″

    I have to wait for 2070 before global warming is serious?

    Christ…

    This really tells me the whole global warming thing is a total scam. Here I was thinking the serious problems would begin in twenty, maybe thirty years and maybe mitigation would be useful. Instead it’s SIXTY FRICKIN’ YEARS!

    By 2070, you chimps won’t even be around. Do you morons have ANY fucking idea where technology will be by 2070? Even the slightest fucking clue?

11. SLC Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    Re Richard Steven Hack

    One thing is for sure, Mr. Hack will not be around in 2070.

12. kim Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    SLC at #9

    If we are cooling dramatically and long term, then the small warming effect that CO2 has and the large crop fertilization effect it has will save millions of lives of those living on the margin. Thanks for bringing it up. At the very least, we should suspend any efforts to encumber carbon until we’ve a much better idea of its effect on climate. With any luck, we’ll know that effect by the time the globe starts warming again and we can encumber carbon then if it is necessary to do so. With just a little more luck, hydrocarbons will be priced out of the energy market by then.

    When will we start warming again? In 20 years or so when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switches back to its warming phase. If the oddly acting sun today is presaging a new Grand Solar Minimum, then it may well be 50-100 years before we start warming again.

    Pay attention to the science, and the thermometers, and the sun. The science is not settled, on the contrary we are barely scratching the surface in our understanding of climate regulation. We certainly don’t know enough to wreak expensive, dangerous, and probably completely unnecessary policy changes about carbon on a struggling economy and a world full of poor people living on the margin.
    ========================================

13. Ricky B Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Those IPCC forecasts are already out of date and most likely represent an underestimation of the progress of global warming and its adverse effects. We must keep in mind that the IPCC reports represent a consensus arrived at by various scientific and political authorities involved in a laborious process, so the information is usually not up-to-date by the time it comes out (and some would say it is also subject to political compromise). The IPCC is valuable because of the consensus it represents, but it is not necessarily the best source for the latest scientific information on global warming.

14. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    Don’t count on it, SLC! LOL!

    One thing you CAN count on – if I am, you won’t be!