In support of Karstens main points above, I recommend (implore) you make Ecological Economics a key principle and a guide.
Why he recommends this, I do not know. Why would we continue to engage in the same economic fantasies we have for the last 150 years, those that got us here? While Ecological Economics *sounds* like a huge change from classical, neo-classical and neo-liberal policies, fundamentally it is not. There is nothing at the foundational level that is different. It’s #greenwashed Capitalism. It retains growth, businesses, corporations, centralized decision-making all while paying mere lip service to putting Nature first. You can’t put profits *and* Nature first.
I thought Reality Check understood this. Perhaps he is taking on the “I don’t care what’s sustainable, we must do the practical, even if it will kill us all” perspective?
Both mitigation and adaptation.
From a societal/community design perspective, these are one and the same. It only confuses things for people to keep repeating the false dichotomy.
Yes, we need to think global and act local.
This is logically incorrect. I cannot design for people thousands of miles from me, nor vice-versa. The correct form for this is, “We must act locally-to-bio-regionally.’ Doing that automatically addresses global conditions. Bioregions, not globe. Bio-regions must come to function within their own ecosystem limits and design to them. People have long been able to do this as evidenced by humans being present on six of the seven continents for a minimum of 18k years, and possibly even in the Americas for 30k years based on substantial new research.
Intra-bio-regional exchanges should be limited to excess renewable resources only, and primarily for meeting wants only after needs have been met sustainably.
Sustainability is ultimately local. Please stamp this in your memory and recall it every time you start talking about managing anything at the global level.
The discussions need to include both the people and the scientists.
I’ve asked the scientists here for over a decade to behave in this manner. Where have you been all that time? Still, I disagree. Just as we see in this thread, climate scientists are not trained in the design and management of regenerative systems and should not be speaking on mitigation and adaptation until and unless they are. I do not talk about how to make a climate model because I do not have that expertise. Why do you think you should be speaking in place of people in my field without the requisite knowledge and training?
The great work of the climate science community yet lies ahead: Finally speaking clearly and forcefully about the risks, the extremes, the changes to day-to-day life that worst-case scenarios are bringing and likely will continue to for at least another 5 to ten years given the slow rate of change in human behaviors.
To illustrate why you may want to focus on the risks and not the solutions, you say, “…SDGs) provide a good framework,” yet this is patently untrue. They provide a framework that people who are comforable with current economic models are comfortable with, but they have no sustainable characteristics among them. They are not based on the measured ecosystem service of the planet – and to the extent they might claim to be, the fact that is not even possible should warn you you are dealing with #greenwashing, not a viable outline of a sustainable response to The Perfect Storm.
SDG 8, in particular, promotes the current economics and governmental structures that we have today, and those got us where we are. SDG 8 is nonsense ecologically speaking. The SDGs dominance in climate discussions is a very dangerous state of affairs that is leading to too much of our reponse being utterly unsustainable. SDG 8 is opposed to a regenerative future.
My main point was that we should not forget the climate science when we start with climate change adaptation.
But that is not what you are saying. What you are saying is people who don’t have standing in the field of regenerative design should be shaping policies around regenerative design. Those of us who do ecosystem design/restoration would find your concern odd: How can you design a resilient homestead, neighborhood, village, town, city, region or bio-region without planning for future changes? Prior to climate change this meant things like natural disasters, population changes, slow changes to hardiness zones, zoning changes, things your neighbors do, etc. Adding climate to the list doesn’t change the process. It’s just another external issue, what we call “Sectors.” And we’ve already been adjusting to climate for decades, so maybe we already have some pretty clear ideas on what mitigation/adaptation looks like?
I invite you to greater humility and to reach out to me or other regenerative professionals to learn what we already know and see if it doesn’t affect the constructs through which you view these issues. If you are open-minded and take on the knowledge from a tabula rasa perspective, it almost certainly will significantly shift your views on current, woefully maladaptive, mitigation efforts.