This is in response to Cal Thomas’ column, “Climate change: Just another snow job” (Feb. 1).
Because greenhouse gas emission reduction has become the top climate change priority, an ethical tragedy is unfolding. It is the assignment of greater importance to possible climatic impacts on future generations than to those suffering today.
With increasing populations at risk, it is now more important than ever that we help the poor adapt to climate change as it occurs — Africans suffering from drought, Inuit affected by permafrost melt, etc.
Yet aid agencies are unable to adequately support those vulnerable people.
Overconfidence about humanity’s ability to predict and even control future climate has led to 94 percent of the $1 billion/day spent worldwide on climate finance to be dedicated to mitigation, trying to affect events that may, or may not, someday happen. A U.N. official said in Copenhagen that funds should be evenly divided between mitigation and adaptation.
Another reason for the imbalance is that mitigation projects are far more profitable for large corporations than are the smaller scale boots-on-the-ground strategies needed to help populations adapt.
This approach is unwittingly supported by most opinion leaders and even the majority of activists who protest loudly in favor of mitigation but say little about adaptation.
Researchers may never properly understand the causes of climate change or its future trajectory, but we do know that people need help now. Let’s help them to the degree we can afford and stop pretending we are the master controllers of the planet’s climate.
Tom Harris, Ottawa, Ontario
Executive director, International Climate Science Coalition
Send questions/comments to the editors.
