We will have to adapt to what is already “in the pipes”.  But we cannot adapt to runaway climate change which is likely to bring 12C/54F increases in temperature and ocean level rises which will cover our coastal cities.

Other countries are, indeed, making progress on this – I agree. But there is a difference between working on it, and reducing emissions. Unfortunately, emissions are currently tied to energy, and energy generation and use are growing in most developing countries. Check out the energy generation plans for most of Africa at the Africa Infrastructure Knowledge Programme to see what I mean. (http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/) There isn’t a single country in there that is saying they have sufficient energy generation. Most of the new capacity is going to be built to exploit resources in these countries – a lot of solar, yes, but moreso coal and (where found) oil/diesel.

Even with the current buildout of planned projects, we’re on route to a changing climate. I completely agree that the US and Canada need to get on the bandwagon and make it a top priority. But I also know that that’s not going to stop the effects of climate change.

Thus, I shall re affirm:”Knowing that, we’re (still) stuck with having to adapt.”

Much of the rest of the world is working on climate change, a good portion of the world is working harder than the US and Canada – the two largest offenders.

“Knowing that, we’re stuck with having to adapt.”

Think about what you’re saying here.  You’re saying that we can’t stop climate change and our only option is to adapt.  Adapt to a 12C/54F rise in global temperature?  Adapt to 80 feet higher sea levels?  

Completely agree that there are probably options for VC money that would have a wider, more positive benefit to the world’s poorest. But since when have VC’s invested for social good?

The reason that they’re not investing in small scale agroforestry is that there isn’t the money, scale or exits available in that sector. Its not only carbon markets that do this though. I can list hundreds of examples where markets don’t engage with the world’s poorest for a range of reasons. 

I’m just pushing you because as you outline, we need all hands on deck, and there are better ways to make your point than expressing dismay at the success of someone providing climate adaptation resources.  

I’m certainly not blaming our failure to clean up our act on the fact that there isn’t a global framework for action. 

I’m just outlining that its ignorant to think that with the rise of the rest of the world that mitigation alone is going to save us. Because its not. 

I was railing on Tim because the reality of the situation is that mitigation is a very very hard thing to do, and given political progress on this issue, its not going to happen fast enough. Knowing that, we’re stuck with having to adapt. Its therefore natural, even ‘good’, that companies are popping up wanting to provide services in this space.

That is all I wanted to point out.

Mitigation efforts to cool the planet or remove CO2 by seeding the oceans carry risks of failure and unintended negative consequences.

Abatement projects don’t have these problems.

Crop and Climate Insurance is definitely an interesting area as it could be important to the goal of consolidating support for a move to sustainable energy and food generation. 

The cost of the insurance premiums and adaptation measures which carry the risk of not working would I hope increase support for renewable energy and abatement.

But I do agree that abatement and adaptation are both necessary, and within each realm pretty much all hands need to be on deck. 

Each hand played, the house rakes off a percentage.

I think that’s a little far out in the future for my investment window. (While we’re seemingly at the tipping point, now, I think it will take a while for the ripple to play out.)

What is needed is for the worst per capita offenders such as the United States and Canada to get busy on their solutions.

Many of the countries of Europe are already working hard to reduce theirs.  China is working harder than we are, and their per capita output is dwarfed by ours.

Blaming our failure to clean up our act on the lack of every other country to sign a piece of paper is a nasty cop out.

The fossil fuel shills, anthropogenic global warning deniers and fellow travelers like Bjørn Lomborg will of course be out in force saying we should put the cart before the horse and concentrate on mitigation efforts.

But the more serious commercial analysis is likely to highlight the 
long term cost advantages of controlling green house gas emissions above adapting to them. 

I really can’t understand why you’re 1) surprised by this and 2) not over the moon that finally someone is providing farmers with relevant insurance to deal with climate change related crop losses.

As I’m sure you know, the UNFCCC process has for a long time had TWO aspects of negotiations – mitigation AND adaptation (along with others, but these were key topics). Why the hating on the fact that the business community is finally getting into the act and providing insurance to where its needed most? Its far better than all the capital being injected into dubious and toxic derivatives.

I’m all for optimism that we can slow climate change, but its stupid to bury your head in the sand and think that we’re going to get all the nations of the world to agree all of a sudden to binding and drastic mitigation efforts. They’ve been doing that since Rio 1.0 and I don’t need to tell you that they’re making inadequate progress.