The deep complexities of climate change raise a myriad of challenges for humanity – not least of which is how best to respond. Should we throw ourselves into slashing carbon emissions and stabilising Earth’s climate as soon as possible? Or accept our fate and go into survival mode? A recently published book tackles this question. In Living Hot: Surviving and Thriving on a Heating Planet , public ethicist Clive Hamilton and energy expert George Wilkenfeld urge Australia to get serious about climate adaptation.
Many of the pair’s arguments make perfect sense. The path to decarbonisation is challenging, and progress has been far too slow. And of course, the world has already heated far too much and more damage is already locked in – so adapting is vital.
However, I disagree with the central thesis of the book: that humanity cannot adapt adequately to climate change if we keep trying so hard to reduce emissions. This is not an either-or proposition: we must do both. Not a zero-sum game Climate mitigation refers to efforts to reduce the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Adaptation involves adjusting our lives to cope with life on a hotter planet – such as higher seas and more extreme weather. Much of Living Hot is devoted to outlining the barriers and limits to Australia’s mitigation task. I agree with some of the authors’ analysis.
Efforts to capture carbon and store it underground are an ineffective distraction . And some emissions-reducti.