date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:19:53 +0100 from: Gary Kass subject: adaptation to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Dear Mike, Many thanks for the email. I accept your points, and look forward to receiving more soon. I loved the Nature commentary. Just the sort of pre-publication publicity our report needs... thanks! How's this for a theory as to why there's bneen little concentration on adaptation. While I agree with you that to talk about adaptation may seem defeatist and may be too complex, there may also be a more deep-rooted political agenda in action (call me cynical!!). Some countries (mainly the US, Canada and Australia), as major users and exporters of fossil fuels, are loathed to do anything to reduce emissions at home (hence the Kyoto stitch-up over emssions trading). As such, it is argued that (as you rightly point out) adaptation may be more effective than mitigation (so far!). However, these countries take the argument a bit further to suggest that adaptation will always be the most cost-effective means of dealing with climate change, and thus is an alternative to mitigation, not just the other side of the coin. In this context, presenting a case for work on adaptation should stress that it is in no way an alternative to mitigation - as indeed you do in the last sentence of the commentary. Indeed, in some areas, there is inevitable convergence between strategies for mitigation and adaptation - e.g. energy use in buildings. I hope your article helps start the ball rolling in earnest. I have alerted Ehsan Massod at Nature about POST's forthcoming report at the end of November, so there should be some useful momentum building up. Regards Gary