So says Nature. Oxford economist Gwyn Prins and scientist Steve Rayner, writing for the famous English publiciation, call for a post-Kyoto "silver buckshot" approach that sounds a lot like what is happening in England right now:
...labelling of consumer products; market instruments, such as emissions trading; and market stimuli, such as procurement programmes for clean technologies; [and] a few command-and-control mechanisms, such as technology standards11. The benefit of this approach is that it focuses on what governments, firms and households actually do to reduce their emissions, in contrast to the directive target setting that has characterized international discussions since the late 1980s.
The focus on emission reduction, by hook or by crook, is what I like about this "inelegant" approach. The authors also call for massive funding for energy research, which sounds anything but bottom up, and based on our unhappy experience in the late 70's in the US, unlikely to make much of a difference.
But on one central point they should be heard loud and clear:
Many climate activists seem to assume that slowing greenhouse-gas emissions has logical and ethical priority over adapting to climate impacts. But the ethical issues cut both ways. Current emissions reductions will mainly benefit future generations, whereas the momentum already in the climate system drives the near-term. Faced with imminent warming, adaptation has a faster response time, a closer coupling with innovation and incentive structures, and thereby confers more protection more quickly to more people. It is not clear to us that the interests of millions of people in poorer countries who depend on marginal ecosystems are best served by an exclusive preoccupation with mitigation. Indeed, such a narrow focus is likely to be a fatal error. Mitigation and adaptation must go hand in hand.
This shouldn't be controversial. Yours truly, and various other Gristians, have been making the same point for years, and scientists such as Gerald Meehl as well. Preserving the climate requires action now, and for decades to come. Given how long it took us to get into this mess, is it really any wonder?
