This is a very personal question for one of the mavens (LH), since she was the first adaptation person to be hired by a major environmental non-profit organization. In the early years, she was tarred and feathered, had rotten tomatoes thrown at her, and was a pariah at office parties. OK, not really, but she did encounter strong concerns in many quarters that her job was weakening the fight to limit climate change.

Let us be clear: we think reducing greenhouse gas emissions is vitally important. We want loads more action internationally, nationally, regionally, locally, and individually. One of the three components of vulnerability to climate change is exposure to change, so limiting change is key to reducing vulnerability. However, we also feel that prudent planning needs to incorporate the reality that some amount of climate change will continue regardless of greenhouse gas emissions, both because of natural climatic processes and because of our “climate commitment” (Wigley 2005).  

Think about it: if you know there’s a chance your house might get flooded, you would ideally act both to limit the chance of flooding (e.g. by sandbagging, diverting water into off-channel storage, etc.) AND to reduce the likely harm should flooding occur (e.g. putting valuables on upper floors, stocking up on food, water, and medicine, buying a boat, etc.). Along Germany’s Friesland coast, where people have lived with frequent flooding from winter storms for generations, they’ve both built dikes to keep the water at bay AND built barns and houses on mounds high enough to keep people and livestock safe should flooding occur. In the public health world, there is a strong focus on preventing disease (typically much cheaper in terms of both money and suffering), but there is also a focus on developing and administering treatments.

In short, this isn’t an either/or situation. To cite the eternal philosophy of Saturday Night Live: “Relax, you’re both right! It’s a floor wax AND a desert topping.”