Closure to “Climate Impact Risks and Climate Adaptation Engineering for Built Infrastructure” by Mark G. Stewart and Xiaoli Deng
Year: 2015
Type: article
Abstract: We thank the discusser for raising the issue of costs and benefits of CO 2 mitigation.However, let us be clear here; our paper makes no claim to assess the cost-effectiveness of CO 2 mitigation measures, nor do we attempt to.The paper applies risk and cost-benefit analysis to adaptation measures as clearly expressed in the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper.Most of the discusser's comments relate to what is a very brief preamble to the paper to help set the scene for the need for climate adaptation strategies.It does not pretend to be a detailed analysis of all the issues related to modeling global climate impacts or CO 2 mitigation.We will leave that to others.The paper includes a brief review of climate change impacts, noting than some impacts may be overstated.This is reasonable and balanced; we are giving both sides of the story.The issue of wealth creation is an important one, as are improved technologies.These factors will affect future impacts of a changing climate and thus need to be considered in any discussion on climate impact.A robust assessment may find such concepts to be flawed, or perhaps not.To dismiss such matters because its advocates want to be morally superior is a value-laden judgement from the discusser that is not helpful to the discussion.The discusser then accuses us of inferring that "CO 2 emissions and fossil fuel dependency represent a desirable state of affairs" and that we "dismiss the idea of CO 2 mitigation with a few citations."These are completely unfounded claims.We do not say that CO 2 emissions should continue unabated.Our very brief discussion on CO 2 mitigation versus adaptation concludes: "Modest and sustained investments in R&D, CO 2 mitigation and adaptation will lessen the worst impacts of climate change.A mix of mitigation and adaptation is desirable to cope with a changing climate."This is a perfectly reasonable summary, one with which we assume the discusser would agree.What seems to have irritated the discusser is that we look at both sides of the argument on the pros and cons of CO 2 mitigation.Public discussions tend to dwell on the urgent need for CO 2 mitigation.However, this comes at a cost, and there could be unexpected consequences.One of them is reduced wealth creation, particularly in the developing world, and how this may reduce their ability to cope with hunger, coastal flooding, malaria, etc.Whether reduced wealth creation outweighs the benefits of CO 2 mitigation is not for the authors to judge.Nor is the role of research and development (R&D), new technologies, changing demographics, and a myriad assortment of what may change in the future.Nuanced CO 2 mitigation may well increase wealth, and new
Authors: Mark G. Stewart, Xiaoli Deng
Institution: University of Newcastle Australia
Language: English
Subfield: Economics and Econometrics
Domain: Social Sciences
SDG: Climate action
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W1992089797