Post #4366160

2026-08-02 21:06 UTC

Problem is that it seems like every time i hear ‘adapt to climate change’ it is almost immediately followed by a reduction in effort to achieve net zero. Adapting shouldnt be part of the conversation because it is not an option at this point. - Its a simple inevitability because so much damage has been done. Net zero sooner vs later simply changes how many people over how much of the planet actually survive through adaptation.

Replies (1)

@sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 2026-08-02 21:31

Problem is that it seems like every time i hear ‘adapt to climate change’ it is almost immediately followed by a reduction in effort to achieve net zero. I don’t think that’s a fair characterization around most of these discussions. For indoor “climate” control, switching to more efficient heat pumps that can be reversible air conditioning, or improving insulation, or architecture/design that allows for better passive cooling or airflow, often has the dual effect of making the building more comfortable and reducing the energy requirements of keeping the building comfortable. For adapting to water use and changes in precipitation patterns, the “adapt to climate change” positions are about using less water (and less energy), and wasting fewer resources in general. Even the debates around moving people or industries or agriculture tend to center around adapting to resource scarcity, and tend to describe methods for reducing resource use at the places where they are scarce: ecological conservation at places where it floods, reducing human presence where natural disasters are more likely to occur, etc.

Open ##4366175