[mandrake-c-papi]

> My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal.

I hate this attitude. You may be doing everything possible as an individual to prevent further climate change, but the majority of people I hear spouting this attitude do not.

It's based on the premise that there will actually be some sort of "new normal" that is worth surviving for. The ongoing impact of our actions is indeterminable - we could end up with something so inconceivably bad that all your adaptation efforts are pointless, or that you simply cannot live a life of any value when compared to the early 21st century.

Also, it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You assume that the impact of climate change are survivable, apparent by the fact that you want to focus on adaptation, but this attitude ignores the fact that there are billions of other people on the planet. Maybe climate change can be survived by us in our situation with all our first world advantages, but there are millions, possibly billions, who don't have that choice.

Focus on adaptation for all you like, but please don't forget that prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late.

[Bendingo]

> it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine".

You're projecting. Parent's attitude is completely rational.

> prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late

Not sure exactly what you think it's not too late for, however it is delusional to believe we will stabilise, let alone reduce, greenhouse gas levels.

[zaarn]

Last time I checked we breezed past the symbolic point-of-no-return at 400 ppm CO2... so it kinda is too late. We can try some damage prevention if you feel like it.

[graeme]

We might as wel try though. It's possible that if we had a carbon tax someone might come up with:

  * very cheap energy
  * a somewhat effective way to sequester carbon

We'd obviously lose a massive amount of energy putting back all the energy we burned but that would be the price of survival.

I don't know if this is possible. But we should at least try. Currently our lack of carbon pricing isn't giving us full incentive to try.

[LifeLiverTransp]

Well, here is the thing- our cooperate overlords have created the perfect system to shirk regulations by shifting production to whoever is the most desperat.

My money is not on goverments or companys here. My money is on some plague drastically reducing the number of humans capable to produce carbon dioxide. It looks containable now, but contain something like Ebola with millions on the move and the UN-Institutions collapsing under this circumstances.

You can not enforce quarantine, if a whole country decides to walk.

[tim333]

It seems over negative as well. There are a couple of simple things that may help with CO2:

1) Exponential improvements with wind solar and batteries. They are all getting like 50% better / year. Project that and you can fix things

2) Re the confusion over different approaches, we have a solution and its called the market. Just have a global $50/ton tax/credit on emissions/sequestration. Politically hard but otherwise would likely fix rising CO2.

[btrettel]

> I hate this attitude. You may be doing everything possible as an individual to prevent further climate change, but the majority of people I hear spouting this attitude do not.

I don't like it either, but I think it's intellectually honest.

I live a fairly low carbon life, probably in the bottom 20% for people in the US. My main contribution is probably from flying a few times a year, which I don't intend to maintain long term. I don't own a car, avoid eating meat, and generally try to use less power when I have the opportunity.

From the left I hear a lot about how climate change is a major issue, but I see few efforts being made to actually address the problem. I don't count planning, by the way. We need action now, and we're not seeing it. And I also don't count efforts to make other people change their lifestyles when those promoting those efforts won't change themselves. That reeks of hypocrisy.

> It's based on the premise that there will actually be some sort of "new normal" that is worth surviving for.

No, it's not. It's based on the premise that the expected return for my effort would be higher for adaptation than trying to convince others to change their habits, making new technology to "solve" climate change, etc. That's not to say that the situation will be good in either case, just that one is better than the other.

I have little to no control over what others do, but I can control my own situation. I fully recognize that others may suffer enormously, but as far as I can tell I have few options to change much of that.

In focusing on adaptation, by the way, I'm thinking about things like offering engineering solutions to our changing world. This is not necessarily geoengineering, which by large won't work best I can tell. It might be things like flood resistant buildings, for example. As a mechanical engineer, I can help design things that will help others.

> prevention is greater than cure

I agree completely.

> that it's not too late.

This is debatable. As far as I'm concerned, the climate will change independent of any efforts I make. Some analyses suggest we're already beyond the point of no return. Even if that's not true, as far as I can tell there's been no practically significant slowing of greenhouse gas emissions, just mostly talk. Talk is cheap.