Chris Berg on adaptation

A common sense approach to carbon dioxide emissions.

The release of the Productivity Commission’s draft report into climate adaptation at the end of last month could have been a spark that changed the debate in Australia.

That’s because it implicitly suggested that adapting to climate change – regardless of whether its origin is anthropogenic, ‘natural’, or whatever – is now the main game.

A copy of that report is here. Berg continues:

In a 2009 paper published in the journal Atmospheric Sciences, Robert L Wilby and Suraje Dessai characterise this as the difference between top-down and bottom-up approaches.

The IPCC looks top-down. This view is purpose-built for mitigation, but no good for adaptation. The IPCC struggles to assess climate change risks on a continental scale, let alone regional scale.

As Wilby and Dessai point out, the IPCC records a low level of scientific agreement even about the direction of rainfall change in much of Asia, Africa, and South America. That degree of uncertainty offers no guide for practical action.

By contrast, a bottom-up approach focuses on how communities adapt to local pressures, not global ones. After all, it isn’t the United Nations that will adapt to climate change. It is individuals. This approach is less flashy, but then, why should climate policy be flashy?


About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Chris Berg on adaptation

  1. cb says:

    This sounds like more ‘use regulation to bypass the legislature’ to me.

    Ignoring the Lie does not make it proponents vanish into thin air: does anyone actually think that the SPECIFICS of these ‘common sense adaptations to climate change’ will not require exactly, AS IN EXACTLY, the same policy decisions the hippies have been chasing after from the very start?

    Are you people truly this oblivious to how things are done in the corridors where the politicos hang out?

    Berg could be as white as the driven snow… but what would matter are NOT his intentions, but the IMPLEMENTATIONS, and just who do you think will be in charge of that? Mmmm? Since the LIARS have not been bought to book, since that would have been oh-so un-polite wot-wot, THEY WILL STILL BE THE PEOPLE WHO DECIDE EVERYTHING.

    Is the basic reality of what is involved in dealing with these people starting to percolate yet? Or do you WANT to let them succeed?

    “…why should CLIMATE POLICY be flashy…”

    God, you’re naive. Either that, or as dumb as post.

    • Climate Nonconformist says:

      Do you seriously think that CO2 exhibits no warming effects? While warming may be mostly beneficial, that is not to say there would be sme negative impacts, however minor. If you actually read the post, you would notice that Berg advoates, and I endorse, bottom-up approaches to adapt to any of these effects. This is not giving the Greenies, what they want at all. How can you not see that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s