Dear Wayne, adaptation and mitigation are not in competition for priority, as might be implied by seeking to place greater importance in one approach over the other. They represent two contrasting but complementary responses to climate change that operate at different spatial, temporal and institutional scales. For example, responses to climate change effects that are already occurring at local and regional scales typically involves adaptation by communities at regional and local scales. Those communities may have relatively little agency to effect meaningful impact on mitigation without becoming part of co-ordinated national and international initiatives and action. Ultimately, even if mitigation is successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions substantially, climate change effects would still continue because of lag times between a fall in greenhouse gas concentrations and a levelling off in warming rate. Adaptation is therefore essential, regardless of the impact of mitigation. Cheers, Matt

Dear Wayne, this is a very relevant question. There is a working paper by Richard Tol titled ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION: TRADE-OFFS IN SUBSTANCE AND METHODS. This focuses on the economic analysis of climate change. See also a related, more recent contribution by Richard Ayre title "Mitigating or adapting to climate change, which is optimal for the economy?". Both of these can be downloaded from the webb. Finally, the well-known Stern Review also discusses this issue.

Regards, Patrik Soderholm

Dear Wayne, adaptation and mitigation are not in competition for priority, as might be implied by seeking to place greater importance in one approach over the other. They represent two contrasting but complementary responses to climate change that operate at different spatial, temporal and institutional scales. For example, responses to climate change effects that are already occurring at local and regional scales typically involves adaptation by communities at regional and local scales. Those communities may have relatively little agency to effect meaningful impact on mitigation without becoming part of co-ordinated national and international initiatives and action. Ultimately, even if mitigation is successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions substantially, climate change effects would still continue because of lag times between a fall in greenhouse gas concentrations and a levelling off in warming rate. Adaptation is therefore essential, regardless of the impact of mitigation. Cheers, Matt

From first principles, prevention of environmental despoliation always takes precedence. Next  in the hierarchy is reduction/ mitigation. In the light of the above, the adaptive strategy is a last resort. Nonetheless, as it pertains Climate Change, the use of mitigation  (e.g using carbon sequestration ) and the adaptive strategy is not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the clime in question  (by way of level of anthropogenic inter-plays) is a key factor in this consideration.

Dear Wang, as stated by Matt, the two strategies are the same, leading to the same hope of reducing the impacts of the climate changes on our living standards in the short, medium or long term at local or global level. Now, to an ecological view, adaptation is what is common or usual to all living organism (even human being). but to a political or strategical level, we try our best by targeting on Mitigation. a nice book (Climate change mitigation and agriculture, edited by Eva Wollenberg, Alison Nihart, Marja-Liisa Tapio-Bistrom and Maryanne grieg-cran. Earthscan Publishing for a sustainable future London.new York 2012. isbn978-1-84971-393-1) dealt of some mitigation strategies experiences. In addition to those two policies you mentioned, a third that is worth to bear in mind is the "substitution" May be not easy to imagine. A stupid and futile dream, that one day we find some thing that replaces electricity in our daily life!!!

A radical idea of adaptation strategy, that is reckless, almost backward climate skeptics - this is advocated by some experts, simply let go of fossil fuel companies and industry, no longer excert pressure on cut emissions. Obviously, many supporters of the free market have advocated the adaptation strategy in the long term. Some scholars believe that if people feel protective measures are sufficient to protect them from the sea level rise or more severe storms, their willingness to support mitigation strategy will be reduced. Regards, JinQ

Dear @Xu, thanks for sharing the question. Of course, both adaptation and mitigation are essential to reduce the impacts of climate change. Let me bring some good resources to your thread. Everything is better than innaction!

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-mitigation-and-adaptation.html

http://www.academia.edu/441106/Mitigation_and_adaptation_are_both_responses_to_climate_change_which_is_better

http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-mitigation-and-adaptation

Development is challenged by the most serious consequences of climate change. To face that challenge, mitigation and adaptation measures should be immediately included in development strategies, programmes and action. It is essential to have environmental security and energy security if developing countries are to reach their development goals. To reduce emissions while facilitating energy independence and sustainable development, much more use should be made of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies.

A changing climate means that the process of adaptation is critical for the Caribbean. Only by implementing adaptation options and policies will the region’s vulnerability be minimized.

http://www.pnuma.org/deat1/pdf/Climate_Change_in_the_Caribbean_Final_LOW20oct.pdf

People tend to focus on the here and now. The problem is that, once global warming is something that most people can feel in the course of their daily lives, it will be too late to prevent much larger, potentially catastrophic changes.

--- ELIZABETH KOLBERT

Climate change is the greatest environmental threat of our time, responsible for rising sea levels, raging storms, searing heat, ferocious fires, severe drought, and punishing floods. It threatens our health, communities, economy, and national security.

In the United States, power plants represent the single-largest source of carbon pollution, spewing 2 billion tons into the air each year. In response, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency has developed the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from power plants and provides states with the flexibility to meet them.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/

Coal-based technology has the potential to make significant CO2 emissions reductions which are compatible with a low emissions future. In the short to medium term, this requires market and regulatory frameworks that encourage investments in the latest technologies that will improve the efficiency of coal-fired electricity generation and thus reduce specific CO2 emissions. Collaborative action by governments and industry is also

required now to encourage worldwide co-ordinated research, development and demonstration of clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which will in the longer term deliver near-zero CO2 emissions from the use of coal.

https://www.iea.org/ciab/papers/ciab.pdf

Both. To some countries one can be more necessary to another... And vice-versa....The strategies could be, by another side, local, regional or global. Finally, it would be necessary economic system changings...

Dear XU

   Mitigation is the most important but practically it is impossible. So, we also look after the adaptation one.

The phenomenon of Global Warming is man-made, but more so as a result of the need to satisfy our desire for livelihoods and sustained existence. There are all sorts of reasons accounting for the current state of environmental problems faced across the world [Global Warming] and examples of this include increased industrialisation, particularly so in developed nations and deforestation.

With an increase in population, there is no way in which the would not be threatened by environmental hazards but the level of escalation can be mitigated by addressing the root causes and minimise our destructive acts on areas that are likely to result in the problem of problem of global warming.

The point about mitigation is already an area addressed in the UN / FAO REDD+ strategies whereby funds are allocated to support residents in forest communities to resort to other means of livelihood [afforestation and community forestry] rather than their destructive acts in depleting forest reserves.

With the high level of completion facing developing nations in terms increasing their growth level through industrialisation, it is very doubtful as to whether the problem of global warming will be reduced or mitigated.

Then adaptation is the most important as countries will need to come to terms with the fact that destruction to the environment is a always going to happen. In this vein, countries will need to find alternative means of curative approaches to help adapt to the consequences of man-made destructive acts, possibly through new means of scientific invention to help combat likely problems of global warming.

Mitigation and adaptation are like water and food - we cannot live without both. Massive scale mItigation works - Mark Jacobson's work at Stanford shows we can live entirely on renewable energy. Adaptation is necessary ASAP as the GHG already released are rapidly changing our climate and weather, and we havbe to adapt to the changes.  

Both mitigation and adaptation is required to streamline the climate change vulnerability assessment reports. Both are not solutions to the vulnerability but a step towards accepting the results and preparing the communities for the same. If the capabilities are not well developed the priority must be given for adaptation (means preparing community tor the risk) and mitigation actual ground work to reduce the risk or delay the risk. But the extreme events as hard to predict the communities must be ready to face it. The irony is that very few communities are aware about the vulnerabilities and risks at the grass root levels. Priority must be decided by the community and they must work towards the both. Governments can only facilitate with mission mode programming for each of vulnerable areas. Globally there is risks but governments find it hard to invest their time and money on the communities they find easy to have business deals of ease. Green house effect needs to be analysed now at the local and regional level to raise the community concern but the situation is not apt for either adaptation or mitigation since its hard to convince them on ground. The scientific communities must not hurry but keep on working on the micro impacts and issues to raise the relevant discussion with communities. National and sub regional discussion must start rather than focusing only on international framework where communities hardly participates. Thanks for the question...

On global warming and climate change prospective, both mitigation and adaptation are equally important. In fact we need an integrated approach. Adaptation would give a short-term solution, while mitigation would give us long-term impact. Development of climate resilient technology (adaptation) would minimize the loss being incurred due to climate induced variables.  It would give immediate, but temporary relief. Resilience exhibits rubber band-elasticity-syndrome. If climate change happens without abatement, then after certain limit, adaptation technology would not work. Hence, mitigation is necessary. 

Actually, there is no category of higher importance here, except depending on conditions of impacts...i.e. one may be more needed immediately than the other. Both Adaptation & Mitigation are equally important & equally needed.

They are both important and needed to confront the aftermath of climate change.

However, while adaptation focuses on helping man and the ecosystem adjust to existing impacts, mitigation focuses on reducing the causatives of climate change, though only man-made causes.

A critical look at both on a comparative view will point to the fact that adaptation is to safe man and other living things while mitigation is to safe the planet.

Adaptation is reality based while mitigation is futuristic. Actions under adaptation are to help man and the present ecosystem live well now while mitigational approaches are to help the planet live well in the future and reduce the impacts of climate change in the near future.

Judging from the existing two schools of taught on the causes of climate change; the anthropogenic and natural (solar, planetry and others) scholars, the former would rank mitigation over adaptation while the later, will rank adaptation over mitigation as the scholars believe that man-influenced activities are not the causes of climate change so all man and the ecosystem can do is to adapt.

Dear Wang,

    The question on surface seems quite straight forward; however, there maybe many competing variables to consider in terms of prioritizing the strategies.   It makes sense that both strategies are important, but saying whether they are equally important in all situations may be more of  a challenge.                                                                                         

     What are the factors that determine when an adaptation strategy should have a higher weight.vs mitigation? 

  How much control does the particular location have on mitigation?

  What is the time-frame that these strategies are expected to play out and will one support or negate the other?  (are we at the point where mitigation may take so long or is so costly that trying to adapt may be a lost cause).   

   Are there other strategies. (Minimalist-Transfer approach for areas where neither adaptation or mitigation will work in a realistic time frame.  Transfer of effort and resources to the next best option may make more sense.

These are a small fraction of the many questions around this  process that would have to be considered (definitely no small task).   

So my answer applying the strategies may need a more adaptive approach with one element having more weight depending on the scenario, and included in an adaptive approach is the idea that there may be other valid strategies that may need to be considered in the approach.

I have read the responses so far and they all touch on many points which would be most relevant.  Thanks for raising the question.

Sad to see comments on here from people who actually deny the clear science around GHG emissions and rapid atmospheric change. But for anyone who feels GHGs are not radically changing our climate (and the weather), we still should support mitigation of fossilfuel pollution for health care costs alone. See the link below. Fossilfuels are a horrible burden on society even beyond our current clear observations of rapid climate change.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/16/high-stakes-climate-poker

Adaptation is very important as it must include agricultural practice changes (including crop changes, timing of planting, harvesting, available local foods,etc), water availability, drinking water availability and weather changes.  If adaptation plans include energy conservation, development of local/region renewable energy production with less reliance of major power grid/fossil fuel sources, then mitigation is built into local/regional adaptation strategy as well.  Reliance on renewable energy for all or the majority of energy requirements with an all inclusive energy conservation strategy is the best a local /regional area can do about climate change short of working to achieve such change on the state/major grid level to greatly reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels for household and small to at least medium sized  industry energy needs.  Elimination of the need for fossil fuels in the transportation sector is a national/corporate political policy strategy and must be sped up.  This is adaptation and mitigation that would greatly reduce CO2 and require, and allow/promote, participation locally and up the political strata.  This is glossed over and doesn't included complicated details of mitigation in many areas where water quantity issues would lead to pollution and many other problems.  The big picture is mitigation, but that does also begin locally, in a sense, one power plant at a time given our current policy dilemma.  Adaption is left primarily to local remedy unless it become an emergency response issue.

What is the problem here? Massive downvoting! At least, we do have two brave "colleagues" who have no courage to discuss the answers they do not like. Or, maybe, they do not like the people who were downvoted. Anonymity in science is bad thing. This is very bad for ResearchGate practice, especially for Q&A! 

I was not downvoted yet, but let us go back to global warming, mitigation and/or adaptation!

Mitigation is the best of option for global warming, but it is long term strategy. The problem is already existing (such as unpredictable rainfall distribution) influence agricultural practices for which adaptation is necessary. Environmental changing is continuing need continuous adaptation for which mitigation is necessary to avoid unstoppable changes. Therefore, the two strategies have importance role and equal importance, one as short term strategy and the other as long term strategy.

The most important thing about global warming is this. Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change is going to be left to the scientists, but it's all of our responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it.

--- Mike Huckabee

The answer is clear, eliminate fossil fuels, they cause all the current weather problems that Shubhash has listed. But the problem is some people like their MONEY more than the PLANET (probably, they have no children!?)

Population growth is no problem.

Kenneth,

After the relationship between climate change (warming) and burning fossil fuels has been established by the UN studies, it is common sense to stop burning them. What about the Oil Giants’ business interests:  Who is going to compensate them for their exploration/production/distribution networks if business slows down? Nobody has stepped in to suggest a solution. Instead, they keep going on as if nothing happened. They need to diversify to survive. Their love for their profits keeps them going. Nothing else. The lives of the next generations don’t concern them.

There is a perfect correlation between amount of CO2 and temperature, as you know. The gas makes the temperature to rise, because it absorbs outgoing (into space) heat. It looks like you are saying not to cut emissions of CO2. Then the temperature will rise even more!

Manitoba has hydroelectric energy with an increasing amount of geothermal heat as well as renewable sources like wind and solar.  Even if the population doubles, there is no need to cut any trees.

I am afraid the climate in Canada has changed dramatically since the 1990’s with previously unheard phenomena happening with increasing regularity such as Heat Waves, Arctic Vortex, Heat Index for summer and a new one coming up this year Cold Index (for high humidity), weather bombs, Tornado Alleys, hurricane-strength winds (no official name yet),  torrential rains/snows with frequent floods & epidemics of asthma and other breathing illnesses (from high humidity). Canada today is nothing like Canada in the 1960's or 1970's as I knew it. People are concerned about what the next weather phenomenon will be.

 Adaptation is essential while Mitigating! 

Wayne, the honest answer to your question is that there is no way to prioritize one over the other in terms of overall policy focus.  Adaptation without mitigation means committing to likely greater impacts in the long term.  Mitigation without adaptation means remaining exposed to growing risks.  Discussions of climate change adaptation, such as Climate Change Adaptation in New York City (Rozensweig, Solecki, et al, 2010), often note the necessity of including mitigation as an integral part of adaptation planning with the goal of reducing long term impacts that must be anticipated.  The area where active choices between the two areas may be relevant is in funding.  Mitigation efforts can be prioritized to take action on measures with the shortest payback periods.   Many such measures will pay for themselves in what is a very short time frame for municipal entities, so most have embarked on some sort of mitigation strategy.  Adaptation efforts often include measures that will only pay for themselves in terms of losses averted, and so become much more difficult to fund within normal budgetary limits.  It appears to me that the municipal entities that have most effectively addressed climate change adaptation are those with the ability to finance the infrastructure upgrades required, meaning large entities with strong credit.  This is an important issue for small municipal entities in the developed world, and for all such entities in the developing world.

http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=ab9d0f9f-1cb1-4f21-b0c8-7607daa5dfcc

Hi Wayne, 

As others have already pointed out, mitigation and adaptations are complementary strategies to climate change problems. Both are relevant depending on the time framework you want to act. Unpredictable climate changes will requiere adaptation to overcome inmediate threats, but mitigation will requiere not only the willing but the economic effort of world governments to regulate gas emmittions, to stop deforestation/increase forest cover, reduce land degradation/desertification,  sustainable plann global natural resource uses (fishing, cattle grazing, etc), and as Prof. Towe has said, tackle populations growth efficiently. 

Therefore, make sure to identify your goals and the time frame you have to achieve such goals in order to choos your strategy. 

Hope this is useful

Interrelationships between adaptation and mitigation! 

"Interrelationships between adaptation and mitigation can exist at each level of decision-making.

Adaptation actions can have (often unintended) positive or negative mitigation effects, whilst mitigation actions can have (also often unintended) positive or negative adaptation effects... An example of an adaptation action with a negative mitigation effect is the use of air-conditioning (if the required energy is provided by fossil fuels). An example of a mitigation action with a positive adaptation effect could be the afforestation of degraded hill slopes, which would not only sequester carbon but also control soil erosion. Other examples of such synergies between adaptation and mitigation include rural electrification based on renewable energy sources, planting trees in cities to reduce the heat-island effect, and the development of agroforestry systems.

Analysis of the interrelationships between adaptation and mitigation may reveal ways to promote the effective implementation of adaptation and mitigation actions.

Creating synergies between adaptation and mitigation can increase the cost-effectiveness of actions and make them more attractive to potential funders and other decision-makers... However, synergies provide no guarantee that resources are used in the most efficient manner when seeking to reduce the risks of climate change. Moreover, essential actions without synergetic effects may be overlooked if the creation of synergies becomes a dominant decision criterion. Opportunities for synergies exist in some sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry, buildings and urban infrastructure) but they are rather limited in many other climate-relevant sectors. A lack of both conceptual and empirical information that explicitly considers both adaptation and mitigation makes it difficult to assess the need for, and potential of synergies in, climate policy..."

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-5-2.html

Adaptation to global warming is a response to global warming that seeks to reduce the vulnerability of social and biological systems to current climate change and thus offset the effects of global warming.

Even if emissions are stabilized relatively soon, global warming and its effects will last many years, and adaptation will be necessary to the resulting changes in climate. Adaptation is especially important in developing countries since those countries are predicted to bear the brunt of the effects of global warming.

That is, the capacity and potential for humans to adapt (called adaptive capacity) is unevenly distributed across different regions and populations, and developing countries generally have less capacity to adapt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming

Dear all,

Emigration can become a way of coping with environmental change, can reduce the risk of a lot of people. emigration is a good example of how climate change will affect other political disputes. The deterioration of climate change has already made the language/word of emigration debate more fiery; similar to that, emigration may also make the climate debate become more confusing.

Emigration, perhaps it's a wise choice to avoid the effects of climate change.

Best,

'Adapt and overcome' is my new motto.

--- Jack Osbourne

Is adaptation always a solution itself? 

"“Adaptation refers to adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts. It refers to changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change"."

Good examples of adaptation to climate change are given!

http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/7021.php

Yes, Dear Ljubomir Jacić.

.... refers to changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change ....!

Hi Wang,

Good question! The choice between adaptation and mitigation is in fact, in many cases, a wrong choice. We will most likely must do both. According to climate commitment studies, we are already committed to additional warming of perhaps as much as 1 °C due to the greenhouse gases emitted through our activities. Since we cannot currently reduce that change, therefore, we have to adapt to at least that amount of climate change.

In order to realize the level of vulnerability to climate change, assessing scenarios that involve no response measures at all (i.e., no adaptation or mitigation), adaptation alone, mitigation alone, and a combination of adaptation and mitigation, can be a useful way. Nevertheless, it seems a combination of adaptation and mitigation might decrease vulnerability to modest levels for most of the global.

Regards,

Ali

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

Climate mitigation is any action taken to permanently eliminate or reduce the long-term risk and hazards of climate change to human life, property.

Climate adaptation refers to the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.

In general the more mitigation there is, the less will be the impacts to which we will have to adjust, and the less the risks for which we will have to try and prepare. Conversely, the greater the degree of preparatory adaptation, the less may be the impacts associated with any given degree of climate change.

For strategies, please the link!

http://www.lead.org.pk/attachments/MDP/Asif%20Kabani%20-%20Mitigation%20and%20Adaptation%20Strategies%20Climate%20Change%20in%20Global%20Context%202012.pdf

Article The Value of Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Mitigati...

Fine resource is attached thanking to @Subhash under different thread. I am bringing it here.

"There are several reasons for the increased vulnerability of societies to natural disasters, including:

• Population growth
• Location
• Urbanization
• Value
• Climate change

While there is not yet consensus in the scientific community whether and to what extent climate change increases the number and severity of climatic events, there are several prominent studies suggesting that there exists a causal relationship, increasing risk

uncertainty"

Yes dear @Keneth, I agree with your comment about fact that population growth is the key driver, while the mentioned are consequences. 

Good post and information, Dear  Kenneth M Towe.

The debate about climate finance, and ultimately the two issues around the problem: who will be responsible for climate change, and who will pay for this. How much money is spent on different estimates, however, they have one in common - they have to be much larger than the amount of money that has been pledged and has been allocated to deal with the problem. Sincerely, Wayne

Science always has its origin in the adaptation of thought to some definite field of experience.

Ernst Mach

Nice quotes dear Kenneth! Leo Tolstoy have said something about false knowledge that I do like! 

“Do not fear the lack of knowledge, fear false knowledge.”

―Leo Tolstoy

Read more at http://izquotes.com/quote/273344

See ...

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=false+quotes&biw=1536&bih=764&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CBwQsARqFQoTCMCg1sDH7scCFReOjgodLWwEyQ#imgrc=p3fBq8UP_HpeqM%3A

Why Do Some People Do “More” to Mitigate Climate Change than Others? Exploring Heterogeneity in Psycho-Social Associations.

"Basic information provision is necessary for people to recognize environmental problems—e.g., to overcome the public's lack of knowledge about climate change—and consciously engage in mitigation behavior... In contrast, an excessive amount of environmental information or very detailed technical data, concerning complex and far-reaching environmental issues such as climate change and global warming, can lead to public confusion and frustration..."

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106645

The issue of finance is one of the key pillars on which the success of a new deal on a binding agreement depends. The need for up-front and significantly scaled-up investments requires effective mechanisms that can leverage and encourage investments into areas where they are most needed to face the challenge of climate change. The role of the Green Climate Fund will be critical in this regard.

―Luis Gomez-E.

On a broad scale, there is little uncertainty about any of these components of change or their causes. However, much of the public believes the causes--even the existence--of global change to be uncertain and contentious topics. Global warming is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of droughts in the twenty-first century, but the relative contributions from changes in moisture supply (precipitation) versus evaporative demand (potential evapotranspiration; PET) have not been comprehensively assessed.

Best wishes,

Bom....Não tenho tempo nem condições de traduzir para o inglês...Aulas.....Atendimento (atividade maravilhosa) de demandas surgidas por meio da internet.....Preparativos para viagem para os Estados Unidos por conta de Pós-Doutorado, etc....

Estratégias de mitigação e adaptação devem ser combinadas a partir de um processo de discussão e construção de consensos envolvendo os principais stakeholders. Devem contemplar, dentre outros aspectos, o curto, o médio e o longo prazo...Devem considerar instrumentos de comando e controle, voluntários, mas, principalmente, econômico-financeiros...

Vamos a um simples (extremamente simples exemplo)...O mundo não dá mais certo na base do transporte individual por automóvel ou motocicleta. É preciso construir, no entanto, uma alternativa sustentável viável....As montadoras vão precisar mudar de negócio...Praticar reengenharia...Ao invés de automóveis....Trem bala por exemplo. Vamos pegar o exemplo da cidade de São Paulo (17 milhões de habitantes, trânsito caótico, baixa qualidade de vida e de felicidade, baixa produtividades, externalidades ambientais, custos ambientais e econômicos, saúde pública, etc....). Se, a partir de São Paulo, fossem construídos eixos radiais para cidades distantes (até 400 km, por exemplo) com linhas de trem bala, as pessoas (na pior das hipóteses) poderiam ainda trabalhar em São Paulo mas (deslocando-se diariamente) viver em outras cidades (desinchando São Paulo....) Qualquer simples cálculo vai demonstrar o efeito mitigatório e de adaptação (neste caso, simultâneos) desta política ambiental. A grande questão (já que a social e ambiental estariam, por si sós, resolvidas...) seria a viabilidade econômica desta política...Investimentos, tempo, preço da passagem, infraestrutura, etc. Lembrando, ainda, que isto induziria o forte desenvolvimento econômico (sustentável) das regiões interioranas contempladas pelo eixo radial....Voltando ao escopo econômico desta proposta de política ambiental sustentável, o governo, as montadoras, as concessionárias das rodovias, as empresas de aviação, as empresas de transporte ferroviário, e todos os demais stakeholders envolvidos, precisariam sentar à mesa e discutir a  repartição de custos, ônus, responsabilidades, investimentos mas, principalmente, lucros....Estaríamos todos preparados para este novo mundo de negócio sustentável, deste novo modelo de capitalismo sustentável? Se não, vai continuar do jeito que está....Só muita conversa...Muita reunião...Muita mídia...Mas poucos resultados concretos....

Bom....Não tenho tempo nem condições de traduzir para o inglês...Aulas.....Atendimento (atividade maravilhosa) de demandas surgidas por meio da internet.....Preparativos para viagem para os Estados Unidos por conta de Pós-Doutorado, etc....

Estratégias de mitigação e adaptação devem ser combinadas a partir de um processo de discussão e construção de consensos envolvendo os principais stakeholders. Devem contemplar, dentre outros aspectos, o curto, o médio e o longo prazo...Devem considerar instrumentos de comando e controle, voluntários, mas, principalmente, econômico-financeiros...

Vamos a um simples (extremamente simples exemplo)...O mundo não dá mais certo na base do transporte individual por automóvel ou motocicleta. É preciso construir, no entanto, uma alternativa sustentável viável....As montadoras vão precisar mudar de negócio...Praticar reengenharia...Ao invés de automóveis....Trem bala por exemplo. Vamos pegar o exemplo da cidade de São Paulo (17 milhões de habitantes, trânsito caótico, baixa qualidade de vida e de felicidade, baixa produtividades, externalidades ambientais, custos ambientais e econômicos, saúde pública, etc....). Se, a partir de São Paulo, fossem construídos eixos radiais para cidades distantes (até 400 km, por exemplo) com linhas de trem bala, as pessoas (na pior das hipóteses) poderiam ainda trabalhar em São Paulo mas (deslocando-se diariamente) viver em outras cidades (desinchando São Paulo....) Qualquer simples cálculo vai demonstrar o efeito mitigatório e de adaptação (neste caso, simultâneos) desta política ambiental. A grande questão (já que a social e ambiental estariam, por si sós, resolvidas...) seria a viabilidade econômica desta política...Investimentos, tempo, preço da passagem, infraestrutura, etc. Lembrando, ainda, que isto induziria o forte desenvolvimento econômico (sustentável) das regiões interioranas contempladas pelo eixo radial....Voltando ao escopo econômico desta proposta de política ambiental sustentável, o governo, as montadoras, as concessionárias das rodovias, as empresas de aviação, as empresas de transporte ferroviário, e todos os demais stakeholders envolvidos, precisariam sentar à mesa e discutir a  repartição de custos, ônus, responsabilidades, investimentos mas, principalmente, lucros....Estaríamos todos preparados para este novo mundo de negócio sustentável, deste novo modelo de capitalismo sustentável? Se não, vai continuar do jeito que está....Só muita conversa...Muita reunião...Muita mídia...Mas poucos resultados concretos....

Beyond Mitigation: Planning for Climate Change Adaptation

Consider the floods, plagues, famines, and other calamities we can expect from climate change, and an apocalyptic prophecy might come to mind, perhaps rightfully so. An expert panel convened to assess risks from climate change put it this way in the 16 May 2009 issue of The Lancet: Should global mean temperatures rise an additional 5–6°C, “more than a billion people could be dispersed in environmental mass migration. . . . An additional 2 billion would be water stressed while billions more would face hunger or starvation. The risk of armed conflict would rise. Public health systems around the world would be damaged, some to the point of collapse.”

Alarming scenarios like this have fueled efforts to lower heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions and limit future impacts [see “Climate Change Abatement Strategies: Which Way Is the Wind Blowing?” p. A296 this issue]. But more recently, scientists have acknowledged that some degree of global warming is now inevitable. “Climate change models tell us that even if we blocked all emissions now, the amounts of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere would raise global temperatures by an additional 2°C by 2100,” says Robert Corell, vice president of the John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and Environment, in Washington, DC. In light of this probability, Corell says, mitigation has begun sharing the global policy stage with a new challenge: how to adapt to climate change that is already under way.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717160/

China's population policy has been helping slow the process of global warming and can therefore be part of a comprehensive solution to climate change. China has formulated three major state policies on family planning, gender equality and environmental protection since it introduced reforms and opened its door to the outside world in the late 1970s, which indicates that China started to integrate the development of population, economy and society as early as decades ago. All parties should develop and implement effective plans and actions in climate change mitigation and adaption based on their own contexts and in line with common but differentiated responsibilities.

Best wishes,

"Everything is better than innaction!"

Indeed, but inaction (or non-action) is what has been happening. Because the world is steered by business & strategic interests. Hence, those who have the real power to change things, are not doing this.

The only thing that could improve the situation is the development of a profitable "green business". Nothing else will help much, especially not nice speeches. This may sound pessimistic, but this is how things have been evolving for a long time.

Dear all,

Climate change and social members' production and life style, education level and other factors are closely related. As people pay more attention to climate change and its impacts on human beings, the study of the vulnerability and resilience to climate change is also in depth.

An ideal society response to climate change include: a moderate population, people with a job that can sustain a living, a healthy life, women can decide the number of their children. The society that has the resilience to climate change must be able to realize the sustainable utilization of resources, pay attention to the environment's ability to be renewable, but not only focus on meeting the current needs.

People's awareness of the consumption patterns and quantities of natural resources will determine the judgement of impact of climate change, social economy and life style.

Best,

Kenneth says: "I share your frustration, but the problem is what we have been discussing...what to do? Change things? Improve the situation? Whose?, Where? We are not even sure there is a climate problem. "

Correct. These are big issues, and I do not know how to solve them. All I know is that in my hut in the woods is getting hotter and hotter, which frustrates me completely. When the hut was constructed (almost forty years ago), the highest temperature inside was 29 degrees. Then it passed 30; then it reached 32 some ten years ago. This summer it reached 34 (inside; outside was 40). This is very bad for me, but there is nothing I can do in this regard, except to return to the city and to switch the air conditioning on. This increases the energy consumption, which contributes to global warming.

Prof. Mario, thank you for sharing your views. There are many factors contributing to global climate change. (a) Population explosion, (b) pollution of the atmospheric environment, (c) deterioration of the marine environment, (d) land erosion, desertification and other damage, (e) reduction of forest resources, (f) the harm of acid rain, (g) speed up the extinction of species, (h) water pollution, (i) toxic waste pollution, (j) the periodicity of the earth's orbital path changes, etc.. Only look at a certain period of time in a certain area of temperature changes, the superposition of these factors and the interaction will be more intense, some time will bring some distortion.

That's just my two cents.

Best wishes,

I do not follow things in detail (I am not a climatologist), but the highest temperatures are usually in the first half of August. (I live 10 km from the coast, at the North Adriaitc sea, Europe.)

I noticed a couple of other things: days may not be much hotter than thirty years ago, but nights surely are. This is why my hut (a little house 2 kilometres out of a village) does not cool down through the night, as it used to do. This is the main reason why the maximal temperature (inside) during the day is getting higher.

Regarding the winter, there are some cold days (with temperatures falling to -10 degrees or so), but the number of cold days is smaller than it used to be. When I was a child, when a snow fell, it lasted a couple of weeks; now, if it falls, it last a couple of days.

In sum, it is getting hotter. If industrial activities and consumption continues in the present way, all we can do is to "adapt" to the new situation, as long as we can. People and rats are resilient creatures, so that we do have chance to survive.

Our ability to adapt is one of our greatest strengths as a species. But in this case, the medicine could feed the disease. As we adapt to climatic changes already happening, some of those behaviors will affect the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, and thus affect the climate itself. Population growth, increases or decreases in air pollution, increased ability to purchase air conditioning or automobiles, and other social and economic changes are difficult to pin down decades into the future. This is why IPCC climate scientists have created a number of emissions scenarios; each one sketches a different set of possible future social, economic, and technological developments for use in projecting future changes in the climate.

https://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/impacts-global-warming-natural-systems

The main measures to solve the population growth:

Family planning is an effective way to control the population size.

Guiding fertility concept, a country and a nation have a deeply rooted traditional concept of birth.

The self adjustment of the species, that is, the ecological balance adjustment in the broad sense.

Play a role in the economic leverage, for the maintenance of the next generation of economic costs.

Kenneth, I appreciate your skill in arguing, but I do not consider your discourse precise enough. Let me answer briefly, because I must do some other things.

You say: "Statements like yours have been made many times over the years."

So what? This does not make my statement wrong.

Furthermore, the statements (examples) you put forward are *not* like mine. You put forward stories about human inclinations (psychology), exceptional events, and so forth. On the other hand, I have *measured* temperature for some 35 years, at the same place and in the same conditions. I have done this not because I am interest in climate changes, but because a hot weather creates me difficulties. I cannot read/write well when temperature passes 28 degrees or so, and I love cold north winds. Unfortunately, the maximal temperature in my hut has increased from 29 to 32 (inside), and this summer it reached 34 degrees, because nights were very hot. On the other hand, the north winds have almost disappeared.  This is the main reason why winters have become mild.

These are long-term changes, not a matter of psychology or exceptional short events. The fact that it was a very hot week in Venice a hundred years ago is not a particularly relevant scientific data (or a scientific data at all). Anyway, I must leave this discussion, at least for several days. The summer is over (thanks Zeus), so that I can and must work now.

I believe that, there are many factors contributing to global climate change. 

Adaptation is a behavior but migration is a respond, I think the mitigation in this case is more important but it is impossible without the adaptation.

I believe that, there are many factors contributing to global climate change. 

Adaptation is a behavior but migration is a respond, I think the mitigation in this case is more important but it is impossible without the adaptation.

I believe that, there are many factors contributing to global climate change. 

Adaptation is a behavior but migration is a respond, I think the mitigation in this case is more important but it is impossible without the adaptation.

Ecosystem Restoration as a Means to Achieve Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation!

"We believe that good science and creative lawmaking can help build markets to help organizations “make money while doing good”. One market based mechanism for climate mitigation is carbon forestry offsetting. It has long been known that standing biomass sequesters carbon. These agroforestry projects create a commodity—the carbon credit—that can be purchased by polluters to offset carbon emissions. The effectiveness of any given carbon offset project is strongly influence by site-specific factors such as ecological successional stage and plant species composition...

Although further empirical research is necessary to measure the extent of climate mitigation achieved by carbon offsets, it is clear that planting trees offers a myriad of co-benefits that can help localities adapt to the deleterious impacts of climate change..."

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ecosystem-restoration-means-achieve-climate-change-frank?trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A577811291460212321512%2CVSRPtargetId%3A7427017890573135834%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary&trk=vsrp_influencer_content_res_name

Can rural renewable energy projects simultaneously meet the multiple goals of sustainable development, climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation? If so, under what conditions? 

"The results show that, under certain conditions, renewable energy projects can simultaneously meet these three objectives, and thus that responses to climate change mitigation and adaptation can be integrated with poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Small scale hydroelectric and solar systems can reduce emissions, enable adaptation and help local livelihoods although there are numerous problems that limit the success of projects including poor design, inequitable distribution of benefits, negative user perceptions, and poorly designed governance and maintenance structures...."

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/triple-objectives-sust-dev-climate-change-mitigation-dennis?trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A577811291460212321512%2CVSRPtargetId%3A6936860796874522836%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary&trk=vsrp_influencer_content_res_name

There will be a hotspot research on global warming via Deep Learning ahead.

... both, mitigation and adaptation are very important, at the same time it is necessary to carry them out, based in international mixed policy and strategy (mitigation and adaptation strategy), so, both, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prepared by all leaderships and scientific researchers of people in our globe. Let's hope and believe in international mixed policy and strategy with wider objective, immediate objectives, performing needed activities with guaranteed budget and human resources, based in basic principles, as purposive, focused, adaptive, participate, transparent, vigorous, practical, credible, and efficient etc. to mitigate and adapt the global warming ...