Original story by Sara Phillips, ABC Environment
Adapting ourselves to a climate changed future has long been seen as a last resort. But with shovel-ready projects beckoning, the era of adaptation may be upon us.
ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE comes in two flavours: mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation is where we try to prevent climate change from becoming any worse. That is, we try to stop the release of more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Learning Adaptive Management with traditional owners - Kakadu
Adaptation is where we try to ready ourselves for the likely effects of climate change. If sea levels are going to rise, for example, we look at levies or planned retreats from the coast. If temperatures are going to soar we make sure railway lines will not buckle in the heat and that hospitals are equipped for surges in people suffering heatstroke.
Adaptation has always been the poorer cousin of mitigation. 'To solve climate change,' declared interest groups, 'we must mitigate the release of greenhouse gases!'
'Yes!' shouted pretty much everyone. The United Nations formed a body to address the problem and the world pinned its hopes on a global treaty to prevent the release of greenhouse gases.
As we have seen, however, this hasn't been the success that was hoped. More than 20 years has passed since the world recognised the problem of greenhouse gases, but no effective global treaty has come into force. Nations and industries have been forced to go it alone in their mitigation efforts, forging ties where possible.
Adaptation was deferred as more of a last-resort option: if effective mitigation was achieved then measures to adapt to a climate changed future would not be necessary.
But Australia's National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) winds up this week, coming together for their final conference. Curiously, it is only now that the advantages of adaptation are becoming more apparent.
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy's assault on New York City, mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced a $20 billion plan to flood-proof the famous city.
The New York Times reported the mayor's rationale for spending such a large sum: "Mr. Bloomberg said that the price tag was high, but that the cost of not taking action would be higher. Hurricane Sandy caused $19 billion in damage and loss of economic activity for the city, he said, and if a similar storm were to strike three decades from now, the cost could be $90 billion."
Half a world away from New York, New York, the US is also putting up the dough to help out Pacific island nations with their needs as the climate changes.
Meanwhile in Australia, organisations as diverse as local councils, wine makers and car makers are already making plans for life with a changed climate.
It would seem after years of disappointing attempts to mitigate climate change that adaptation has suddenly found friends.
Perhaps it is simple necessity that has brought adaptation in from the cold. Many were quick to blame Hurricane Sandy on climate change, and with such a stark reminder of the potentially disastrous results of continued emissions of greenhouse gases, the urgency of addressing climate change slid abruptly into focus.
In which case, why wouldn't Bloomberg announce $20 billion in energy efficiency measures? Or $20 billion in renewable energy projects? Could it be that the appeal of a bricks and mortar project to address a problem is more attractive than something intangible such as energy efficiency?
Politicians have always loved a ribbon cutting. The phrase in the business is "shovel ready": projects that pollies can be photographed in front of, in order that their credentials as can-do kind of people can be broadcast.
Adaptation has the appeal of creating shovel ready projects that photograph well and save money in the longer term.
Adaptation is also less jarring culturally. It is one thing to recognise that burning coal, oil and gas for energy is affecting the climate, it is quite another to restitch the entire underpinnings of our economy and quality of life. To subscribe to the philosophy of mitigation is to subscribe to a radical shift in the way the world currently runs.
Adaptation, meanwhile, is more of a tinkering at the edges kind of approach: it is not trying to prevent the storms, it is trying to prevent the storms from upsetting our daily lives in any meaningful way.
With mitigation efforts to date considered to be inadequate to prevent dangerous climate change from occurring, the appeal of adaptation will only grow. Expect to see politicians of all stripes in hardhats and fluoro vests attending shovel ready photo-ops Australia-wide.
But beyond political positioning, preparing Australia for unusual weather patterns and effective response to natural disasters can only be a good thing.
Read a news report about the end of NNCARF here.
