It is a soon to be announced strategy under the guise of adaptation through paying "insurance" to fund safeguards against extreme weather events.
Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
June 15, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Efforts to curb global warming have quietly shifted as greenhouse gases inexorably rise.
The conversation is no longer solely about how to save the planet by cutting carbon emissions. It's becoming more about how to save ourselves from the warming planet's wild weather.
It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg's announcement last week of an ambitious plan to stave off New York City's rising seas with flood gates, levees and more that brought this transition into full focus.
After years of losing the fight against rising global emissions of heat-trapping gases, governments around the world are emphasizing what a U.N. Foundation scientific report calls "managing the unavoidable."
It's called adaptation and it's about as sexy but as necessary as insurance, experts say.The latest strategy originates from a huge revelation and admission--planetary climates shift naturally, all by themselves, regardless of human presence. In other words climates shift over time, always have and always will. When they do, extreme weather events can and should be expected.
Anyway, when all is said and done the carbon credit trading scheme is fast falling by the wayside. Hence the new "Insurance" scheme.
Frustrated but not defeated the elitist power mongers have, as they usually do, contrived a new angle to the inevitability of natural climate shift. The argument this time does not rely on science concoctions or prestige based actors for the business case, instead it acknowledges climate shifting is a reality all by itself.. BUT needs to be adapted to.
Adaptation - this part I have no quibble with, it is what should have been the plan all along, adaptation to something which is immutable.
In prior ages, when shifts in climate occurred, inhabitants naturally adapted. The process was quite simple, abandon places which became submerged, baked or frozen and migrate to locations more suited to habitation.
Adaptation: This was done by humans and wildlife alike--somehow the powers of balance and equilibrium prevailed and although inconvenient... life went on and even prospered.
Even today it is noted that climate shift is turning some deserts into verdant green places and CO2 is a super fertilizing agent for plants in general... and so far more and healthier greenery is thriving in the more clement environment. Plants of course exhale oxygen, a good thing... after they have converted the CO2.
Adaptation--without the need for government or taxation. But that was then and this is now.
The problem with migration is... it doesn't fulfil governments requirements for sustained tax bases in established places, so it will be avoided at all costs.
Simply, government supported adaptation will consist of making established regions and locations "climate shift proof."
This will be done through collecting adaptation taxes called "insurance fees" from the inhabitants who will of course see the good logic of the proposition and probably comply. They will pay to have their location hardened against the oncoming ravages of nature.
In his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance," Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts.
But in his 2013 book "The Future," Gore writes bluntly: "I was wrong." He talks about how coping with rising seas and temperatures is just as important as trying to prevent global warming by cutting emissions.I can only imagine what the third book will advocate.
It seems one way or another way, climate shifting will become a government cash cow, eventually citizens will be required to pay "rescue" fees when the walls of Atlantis crumble once again in spite of funding monolithic climate control boondoggles, which are bound to be ineffective.
In March, the Presidents science advisers sent him a list of recommendations on climate change. No. 1 on the list: "Focus on national preparedness for climate change."This looks like the signal for broad implementation of the "climate shift barriers."
"Whether you believe climate change is real or not is beside the point," New York's Bloomberg said in announcing his $20 billion adaptation plans. "The bottom line is: We can't run the risk."
On Monday, more than three dozen other municipal officials from across the country will go public with a nationwide effort to make their cities more resilient to natural disasters and the effects of manmade global warming.
"It's an insurance policy, which is investing in the future," Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, Calif., who is chairing the nation's mayors' efforts...This looks like a clue to the real driving force for the "Adaptation" strategy--insurance company lobby groups.
For decades, scientists referenced average temperatures when they talked about global warming. Only recently have they focused intensely on extreme and costly weather, encouraged by the insurance industry which has suffered high losses...It is true folks would prefer to be protected and stay put where they are, I get that, it is a very natural desire.
My caution to these folks is this... no matter what safeguards are designed and implemented to thwart the effects of a shifting climate, they are probably going to prove unreliable and inefficient, they will be costly and you need to be aware of false assurance claims.
It is incumbent on every individual to evaluate location risks and to decide whether remaining in a "bulls-eye" region, is to your advantage or ultimate demise... paying protection money and a government assurance of safety and $1.50 may buy you a small coffee.
Self determination will be the key to mitigating risk born of extreme weather phenomena as our planet escalates into a natural climate shift phase, historic records will give you the information you need about your location.
No comments:
Post a Comment