Mitigation or Adaptation…

Slightly serious and concerned tonight about what I am doing …

I would like to open with a definition of science given by Dessler and Parson (2006, 23). According to them, science is “a social activity […] an activity that gains power from harnessing the skills and efforts of multiple people in pursuit of a common goal. The power of science to answer positive question and advance our knowledge of the world is unparalleled in human history”…

View from the Opera House in Copenhagen during the COP15, 2009

In these last decades, the scientific and academic worlds have debated, on the basis of acquired knowledge, about the most appropriate policy to tackle the effects of climate change. The most relevant policies outlined have been embodied in adaptation and mitigation measures. Both processes have been largely debated and analysed, especially with regard to different methodologies, costs and outcomes, subjects involved in the process, and effects of the applied policy on society. Just as Dessler and Parson (2006, 90) suggest when introducing the argument “adaptation measures target the impact of climate change, seeking to adjust human society to the changing climate and so reduce the resultant harms”. Meanwhile “mitigation measures […] target the causes of climate change seeking to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing the climate to change”. These policies are different and focus on distinct aspects of the issue, but both adaptation and mitigation have embodied a linkage between environmental policy and science. First, it is possible to argue that science holds a privileged position within its relationship with policy-making. In fact, it is crucial to keep in consideration that politicians do not have enough knowledge to debate scientific discoveries, and consequently policy-makers have to take for granted scientific statements. Second, science delivers foresight and models to policy-makers, as well as tools that should facilitate their strategy-planning tasks to face the coming problems. In both cases, science highlights the causes that are inherent to climate change, such as in mitigation policy, and estimates climate variations that are crucial for projecting adaptation measures. For example, anticipatory adaptation found its strength on forecasts produced by scientists as “anticipatory adaptations are deliberate decisions to prepare for potential effects of climate change” (Smith 1997 in: Frankhauser et al. 1999). In this case, scientific outcomes may determine policy-makers’ decision, such as preventive measures that have to anticipate any possible threatening climatic alteration. Furthermore, Frankhauser et al. (1999) claims that “successful adaptation to a large extent depends on three elements: timely recognition of the need to adapt, an incentive to adapt, and ability to adapt. Timely recognition requires access to reliable and detailed information, and the ability to process such information”. The authors are stressing here the pre-eminence of scientific research for a positive development of adaptation policy. In fact, accuracy in researches and forecasts may produce some crucial results useful for governments while delineating their policies. For example, the obtained knowledge represents a key-point for planning policy that may protect sectors such as agriculture from sudden changes that would otherwise increase instability. Second, science results are relevant for governments when considering costs and benefits to support environmental measures: a major quantity of high-quality information may be critical in order to ensure right investments in environmental policy. However, it appears that, whether science plays a strong role in influencing policy, highlighting causes of climate change or presenting models that analyse the impact of the change, the influence exercised on policy is very important.

There are further elements that stress the character of scientific analysis with regard to policy. Science does not focus only in studying causes of climate change and shaping strategies that have to be delivered to governments in order to influence their guidelines. Indeed, a further phase covered by science is to discuss in which measure adaptation and mitigation may be applied and be appropriate as policies. As Tol (2005) suggests, the trade-off task is very controversial, not merely because in a primary phase science highlighted a major attention on mitigation measure. This point is a consequence of the fact that “models that support decisions for mitigation and models that support decisions about adaptation necessarily operate at different resolutions […] it is therefore not practical to look at the trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation, as no study can do right to both” (2005, 573). The author underlines the different conditions in which these policies work. Primarily mitigation has a more international perspective; meanwhile adaptation may be useful at a local level. Thus, adaptation and mitigation should not be considered complementary strategies.

However, scientists are debating whether adaptation and mitigation could be used together or not; studies (Tompkins and Adger 2005; Robinson et al. 2006 in: Perry et al. 2007, 749) have also considered the option of a synergistic relation. Rather than summarizing the distinct output of mitigation and adaptation; the researchers retain more efficient to integrate them.