|Just another day in paradise|
There's been a long-running debate over (1) whether global warming is happening, (2) whether that's leading to climate change, (3) when climate change will lead to "novel" weather, (4) how damaging that weather will be, and (5) what we should do about it.
Most of the debate has focussed on (5), since changes in habits are costly for individuals who prefer business as usual and VERY costly for businesses that would lose money from a shift in habits (using less oil, for example). In contrast, the science in (1) and (2) is settled.
What's interesting to me, is that the models behind (3) and (4) may have been too optimistic, in terms of predicted intensity and frequency of impacts.
Three years ago (if not earlier), I claimed that we need to reform our institutions to adapt to the impacts of climate change arriving in greater fluctuations in the water cycle, to defend ourselves against "death by a thousand cuts, but I have not seen very much action in that regard. Some companies are changing their business models, and some investors are divesting from fossil fuels. Many insurance companies are raising prices, but few governments are changing policies.
My guess is that the smart money is now looking VERY hard at how current events will translate into future options, especially when the vast majority of people are sleep walking into greater danger. For me personally, that means moving to Amsterdam, which both a pretty place and one of best-defended cities in the world. The contrast with Riyadh, a city in the desert that depends on water from 500km away and 24/7 air conditioning when temperatures are above 40C (104F) for months, is stark.
Bottom Line: Don't wait for climate change. It's happening now. If you think that's wrong, then compare the benefits of action from the costs of inaction.