Adapting to Global Warming

Because some amount of climate change has already occurred, and more change is inevitable based on the greenhouse gases already emitted, society will need to adapt. Adaptation is already happening on some fronts. Many insurance companies are examining their practices and taking climate change into account in setting their rates and their policies. Air conditioning is becoming more widespread in North America and Europe. Some communities on small islands are already making plans to abandon their homes due to rising sea levels.

The argument for adaptation is that even if all emissions were stopped today, the greenhouse gases which are already in the air would be enough to cause some climate change. CO2 in particular is long-lived atmospheric gas, and it would take a long time for CO2 levels to stabilize to pre-industrial levels, due to the limited rate at which the earth absorbs CO2, as is highlighted in studies of the carbon flux. Total CO2 emissions are likely to rise in the coming decades and climate change is already happening: glaciers are melting, sea levels have risen, and hurricanes are getting more intense. With rising CO2 levels, climate change is likely to get worse before it gets better. For these reasons, many feel that the world must prepare and adapt to the effects of global warming, like it or not. The IPCC Working Group II argues that mitigation and adaptation should be complementary components of a response strategy to global warming.

However, those who argue for adaptation argue that any meaningful mitigation policy is politically, economically and morally impractical. They assert that the requirement of holding global greenhouse gas emissions constant is unrealistic, especially when one takes account of the growth rate of developing countries such as India and China. At their stage of economic development, increasing standards of living and economic activities directly translate into near proportionate increase in greenhouse gas emission, and therefore caps on energy consumption would mean caps on their living standard and economic growth, which would reduce the benefits from increased living standards such as reduced infant mortality, increased life expectancy, and better medical care.

In general, the advocates of this position accept that human activities are the likely cause of global warming and support such policies as energy taxes, while at the same time, oppose emission caps generally supported by the green movement.