Between July's record-breaking heat around the world, to the devastating wildfires in Canada and Hawai’i, to Hilary dropping years’ worth of rain in a day in California, extreme weather is making it increasingly difficult for deniers to act like nothing is happening.
As a result, we're likely going to see a bit of a shift in rhetoric as deniers attempt to remain at least remotely credible, particularly at more 'elite' outlets like the National Review, the self-styled arbiter of conservative politics. The Review has long published all manner of climate disinfo, but last Friday, a long piece by Joel Kotkin and Hügo Krüger struck a slightly different tone: “Adaptation Is the Answer.”
Yes, we've officially made it one step further down (up?) the denial ladder, from “It's not happening!,” to “It's not our fault!” to “It's not that bad!” to, finally, with the evidence piled up, “We can just adapt!”
Kotkin and Krüger cite humanity's survival through past changes, as evidence that humanity can adapt to the severe climatic changes occurring on a scale and pace we've never before experienced. Like there haven't been any advancements in technology and infrastructure and urban design that might make it a shade harder to adapt than it was "between the seventh and third millennia B.C."
But the most serious problem with their argument is that adaptation to climate change without reducing fossil fuel emissions would mean humanity could never stop adapting. The authors even admit this themselves, citing Galveston, Texas' seawall, built in response to a hurricane in 1900, as an example. "Texas is now considering building an even bigger seawall," the authors write, "to withstand future storms." But it won’t stop there; as soon as Galveston finishes a new seawall, it'll be time to start working on the next one! In fact, it already is!
And that's not even to mention the sorts of adaptations that require more than just building a wall, like places burned by wildfires, or protecting people from dying during extreme heatwaves.
Adaptation may be the answer if the question is "What should we be doing to protect people from the symptoms of climate change, while also reducing the climate pollution causing the problem in the first place?"
And it seems it's also the answer to the question of "What argument will deniers resort to using when climate impacts become undeniable?"