Comments on The agonistic blogger: Let's all fiddle while Rome burns

Dear Peter,Thanks for engaging in this, which I th...

2008-06-04T11:32:00.000+08:00

Dear Peter,

Thanks for engaging in this, which I think is a very interesting discussion. Your comments are appreciated, although I would like to provoke you some more on this topic.

While I understand the point you are making regarding sitting and theorising and conceptualising rather than taking action, I am sure you would agree that climate change is an enormously complex issue that pivots around our current development paradigm, which you yourself note by your comments about Burma is highly inequitable, corrupt, power hungry, and designed to keep the poor in poverty (see Ben Wisner’s RADIX website for some good fodder on that: http://www.radixonline.org/).

Surely you wouldn’t suggest moving ahead without thinking carefully about the various factors that influence this. One of the most dangerous consequences could be maladaptation – i.e. taking action without thinking through what exactly it is that is the reason behind why people are adversely affected by climate change and eventually ending up with a situation where more people are more vulnerable. This is what my paper tries to address, and the target audience is really the mainstream of adaptation scientists who propose focusing only on the impacts of climate change and not the underlying vulnerability.

By the way, I wouldn’t suggest that my paper relies heavily on McEntire’s. His invulnerable development concept is useful for understanding what needs to be achieved to ensure that climate change and hazards do not destroy development progress, but I believe I cite him once only. The works that have been much more influential for me are Blaikie et al 1994 (Wisner et al 2004 in the second edition), Barry Smit’s work, Terry Cannon’s work, Ian Burton’s work, Allan Lavell’s work, Susanna Davies’ work and Tony Oliver-Smith’s work.

If you are eager to read any of these papers, let me know and I can share them with you. I have just prepared a Reader on Adaptation for Earthscan and in the process put together what I think are some of the most seminal papers on this topic. Also, I recommend IPCC WG2 Chapter 17 to give you an idea of what the whole mess is about (and why I felt my paper was a necessary contribution).

Sincerely,

Lisa

Hi Lisa. Firstly it is an unexpected honour to rec...

2008-06-03T21:51:00.000+08:00

Hi Lisa. Firstly it is an unexpected honour to receive your comment on what, for me, is a loosely structured research journal.

In response I can say that I have not had the opportunity to read other adaptation scholars, save for a cursory reading of McEntire's Sustainability or invulnerable
development?, a work on which your own work relies heavily.

The frustration evident in my post is one that was undoubtedly also evident in the living rooms of many throughout the world as reports emerged of the Burmese junta denying NGO's access in order to provide much needed humanitarian aid following the devastation of cyclone Nargis. While the generals bickered and postured, thousands died for want of basic and immanently available food, clothing, and shelter. These are images that are both sickening and saddening; and I know that you would share my frustration and annoyance that more was not done.

The matter of climate change though is not, I would argue, of the same immanent threat as the problems caused by cyclone Nargis; or at least that's what the behaviour of scholars and policy would have me believe. As you point out, the over-abundance of definitions of the concept of adaptation has created problems of interpretation for policy makers. In turn, this confusion of meaning slows down the policy development process, hence slowing the world's response to a threat that, if not treated as immanent, will become so within the life-time of most young people.

My suggestion therefore, is for climate change academics to urgently move beyond potentially dangerous self-referentiality and the confines contained within their own discourse, and look for that which puts them on the same side of the problem as those most at risk. Rather than arguing the pros and cons of invulnerable development as opposed to sustainable development, let us immediately find those threads of the argument that create unity and begin a discourse of urgent political imperative built around this unity. Once we have the ship pointing away from the rocks then, and only then, should we argue the toss about finer directional adjustments.

Hi Peter. I just came across your comments on my p...

2008-05-31T00:16:00.000+08:00

Hi Peter. I just came across your comments on my paper. I was curious whether you felt that other adaptation scholars had managed to do better in talking about adaptation theory, and also what suggestions you have for easing the transition from theory to policy on adaptation? You have my paper so you know where to find me.