Dickie
We need to decide the right balance between adaptation and mitigation in response to climate change, and counting rhinos is not a very useful to that end. I agree with Graham that the current debate on responses to climate change gives too much weight to mitigation compared to adaptation, because:

1) We don’t know for sure how much the climate will change, or how much of than change is a result of human activity. Building resilience better equips us to meet an uncertain future.

2) CO2 emissions and concentrations will continue to rise for several decades even if the world starts to act seriously to reduce emissions. So if the scientists are right who say this will produce more warming, we will have to live with warmer temperatures. Better to recognise that fact and respond to it than to deny it.

3) It may well be less costly and more feasible to adapt to climate change than to try to prevent it, especially in the short term.

4) Developing countries rightly see the rich developed countries as the source of the rise in CO2 concentrations to date, and understandably place a higher weight on economic development and raising their citizens’ living standards than on preventing emissions from increasing in future. Unless we can find a way to raise developing countries’ living standards without raising their emissions – and so far that’s not possible – then we have no moral right to demand the actions necessary to truly reduce global emissions, which will inevitably mean trying to avert the expected expansion of emissions from developing countries.

Rhian

Typically of many pro-industry/profits-at-all-cost supporters, you fail to address most of the hypotheses, which have already been raised by eminent scientists therefore, these hypotheses/facts are not my revelations!Instead you trivialise the information on the "counting of rhinos".

May I remind you that third world countries which are pumping C02 out by the billions of kilograms, are merely doing what we westerners commenced during the industrial revolution and have continued to do so. Therefore, you and I are agreed on the moral principle to refrain from bullying the developing nations. However, that does not absolve us from a responsibility to set an example by immediately reducing our anthropogenic carbon emissions within the western nations.

We are also agreed that even if we do nothing now, atmospheric C02 will increase. This is due to the catalytic effects from other carbon based chemicals already in the atmosphere! Therefore, your innuendo not to take action now and continue polluting, reveals that you deny man's damaging impact on the environment! As a result your recommendation would merely multiply the concentrations and extend the period of excessive carbon emissions.

And typical of western mentality, China's problems are exacerbated by heavy industry factories moving from Europe, USA, Japan and Australia, to enthusiastically add to this country's environmental pollution.

To China's credit, its top government official (Zhou Shengxian),in November, was reported as stating: "In some places, environmental problems have affected people's health and social stability, and damaged our international image".

Some pity, that Australia's top government officials refrain from making such an admission!

Do you and Graham recommend the:

A)......."Adapt or Die theory" i.e. Do nothing environmentally and quit our sookin'!

OR

B)......."Change or Choke theory" i.e Pull our heads in now
by reducing man-made hazardous emissions immediately!

Dr David Morgan, Westpac's CEO said the the shift in the balance of power from governments to private enterprise meant companies had a greater responsibility for fixing environmental problems. "We had better start doing something about these problems that threaten the sustainable health of the planet and the system as we know it", he said.

My sentiments exactly, Rhian!

Dickie,

I don’t “deny man's damaging impact on the environment,” but nor do I accept the false dichotomy you offer, to either do nothing at all, or to do everything immediately. Yes, we should be acting to cut emissions, but I believe that we should also be acting to adapt to climate change. The balance between mitigation and adaptation, and the timing of the measures we implement, should be chosen to select the balance that minimises the costs and maximises the benefits.

You say we should “set an example” by reducing our emissions in the West. But if – as you admit - that has little effect on carbon concentrations or global warming, isn’t this just an expensive and pointless sacrificial gesture? What we do must be conditioned by what others do. “Setting an example” is all very well, but if no-one follows that example we’ll have the worst of both worlds – all the economic costs of cutting emissions, and none of the environmental benefits of reduced carbon concentrations.

Given time and the right market signals, the private sector will come up with more sustainable economic development in future, as Morgan suggests.

I see both adaptation and mitigation as means to an end, namely responding to risks and minimising the harmful effects of climate change, with the timing and balance of those approaches determined by the best way to achieve that end.

The pro-industry/profits-at-all-cost supporters, of which you assume (wrongly) that I ‘m one, seem to me less dangerous zealots than the anti-industry/cut profits-at-all-cost supporters who see reducing economic activity as an end it itself.

Rhian

Since I've yet to access any data where anyone proposes specific "Adaptations" to cope with GW, I am keen to learn what you are suggesting.

Mitigation of pollutants can be implemented immediately to reduce carbon emissions.

Clearly, you are not familiar with emissions' reports from pollutant industries. If you were, then, after picking yourself up off the floor, you would discover that there are few regulations to reduce hazardous emissions.

Allow me to give you just one example. Community members appealed against a serial polluter, since this company's PM emissions were around the 650mg/m3. The DOE refused to enforce any regulations. However, miraculously, the Minister at the time upheld a community appeal and the rogue company was instructed to implement pollutant prevention control. This resulted in subsequent emissions of around 8mg/m3, after a scrubber was installed. This enforcement had little negative economic impact on the company and the scrubber should have been installed at the commencement of operations. DOE also allowed them to spew out 50mgs/kg of PCB's. In fact no pollutant was capped at all! My years of research have instilled in me a cynical view of industry where they have great reluctance to adhere to any environmental principles until they are forced to.

No doubt you are also under the illusion that Departments of Environment are established to protect the environment and community health. This could not be further from the truth! There are hundreds of large industrial companies operating in this country without pollution prevention control, yet should you or I drive around with a smoky exhaust pipe, we would be immediately forced to rectify the problem or cease driving.

There are many Chinese delegations visiting my region to observe the technology of our industries which should include state of the art pollution management!

I, unlike you, believe that an immediate reduction in anthropogenic carbon emissions will have a long-term beneficial effect, though, it will take many decades/centuries? to reduce the already present atmospheric C02. Your recommendation to continue polluting the planet for the time being, holds as much credibility as does the tobacco industry!

Dickie,

There's lots of literature out there on adaptation. Stern devotes three chapters to it. Possible measures in Australia include:

Agriculture: research into expected changes in rainfall/temperature etc and changes in cropping, planting etc practices to suit the new environment.

Coastal zone planning: investment in sea barriers and erosion prevention measures where feasible and worthwhile

Disease research: to identify likely changes in risk and measures to avert/ameliorate them

Urban design: planning for higher temperatures, lower water use, more extreme weather events.

Infrastructure: building more dams, desalination plant etc

Emergency planning: investment in bushfire fighting equipment and personnel, better cyclone forecasting and responses

Dickie, you're fairly adept at inventing straw man arguments. My point was that climate has always varied and that we need to be prepared for this, and that the variation, without global warming, has been larger than the most credible scenarios for global warming attribute to CO2.

At no stage did I say we shouldn't worry about Greenhouse. What I did say was that Greenhouse is only one contributor to global climate and that no-one could stop climate change.

I worry about Greenhouse, but I also accept that it is largely out of our hands, because the biggest contributors to Greenhouse come from outside our country. As a result, I spend my time thinking about life in a Greenhouse environment, not wondering whether there is any possibility of me stopping it.