Depending on which account you wish to believe the ancient city of Rome was decimated (it was actually more than a tenth of the city that was
destroyed) by fire in July of 64 CE. As legend has it (always disputed,always fluid) the then Emperor, Nero, did little to stop the spread of
the blaze. Nor, for that matter, did the Christians, which is another story all together. The long and the short of the story is that "Nero
fiddled while Rome burned". Whether or not he played a fiddle, and regardless of what he did or didn't do to put out the fire, this short
euphemism is a way of saying that he didn't do enough on his watch. I intend here to make a similar criticism of the those involved in
contributing to climate change policy.
Recent television coverage of the reaction of people to the earth quake in China provide a case in point. I recall a particularly vivid image of
the moment when one of the after-shocks struck in which a mother took immediate action to protect her child from danger. It was an instinctive
response, one that she had no training for, one that came from a knowing deep within. We humans know what to do without the need for thinking and
analysing. We don't need theories and discourses and theories of discourses to know how to respond to an emergency. We simply do what is
needed.
So it was with great annoyance and frustration I read Schipper (2007), a scholar who wants to see something done about the horrible mess of
climate change but who, in my view, simply becomes part of the problem. My agitation comes from the bickering she highlights between scholars
developing theories about adaptation to climate change and climate change policy makers. A preponderance of often conflicting,
self-aggrandising (my words not Schipper's) definitions produced by scholars become too confusing and too complex for those attempting to
put together some form of policy framework to deal with the problem.
Rather than producing a bias for action, as is expected from leaders in a time of crisis, this constant theorising and over-analysis produces
little more than elegant theory. For those watching from the sidelines it's a source of great frustration.
Unlike the mothers protecting their young in China scholars, policy makers, and leaders are only too happy to fiddle while the world, not
the city, burns.
Schipper, E. (2007). Climate change adaptation and development: Exploring the linkages: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Retrieved May 20. 2008, from http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/
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.
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.
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