Global Warming Benefits? New Approaches to Climate Change That Prioritize Adaptation and Technology Can Be Better Returns on Investment Than Catastrophism and Too-Much-Too-Fast High-Cost Mitigation

     This post is based on an article in Climate Cosmos by Space Systems Engineer Walter Isacson (not the more famous Walter Isaacson). He first presents – The Economic Argument for Controlled Warming – first referencing a 2024 World Bank report that emphasizes that global warming will benefit some regions. Northern regions such as Canada and Russia are already experiencing longer growing seasons and higher agricultural output due to global warming. He points out that, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the energy transition to renewables could cost $100 trillion by 2050. He also states that according to some experts, “the return on investment in adaptation, such as flood defenses or drought-resistant crops, might exceed that of aggressive emissions cuts.” He cites increases in agricultural revenue in Scandinavia due to “adaptive measures” but does not say what those measures are.

     In making the argument for measured adaptation, he cites better carbon capture technologies for industry, improving geoengineering capabilities, and genetically enhanced, drought-resistant, and heat-tolerant crops for Asia and Africa, where more people are vulnerable to climate changes.

“These advances indicate that humanity's ability to adapt could reduce the need for drastic emission reductions. Proponents believe that focusing on adaptation and technological fixes could be a more realistic and effective path forward, especially given the slow pace of international climate agreements.”  

      He references a 2024 study in Nature that explored known warm periods in the past, such as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, where biodiversity increased and species migrated into regions that became more hospitable. Agricultural expansion and population growth were also a part of those time periods. He notes that similar things are happening today, including a “northward migration of certain fish species has revitalized commercial fisheries in the North Atlantic.” Changing climatic zones can cause both harm and benefit so we need to observe and look out for both.

     Next, he shifts to – The Psychological Impact of Climate Alarmism. There are many problems in the world but if we are constantly inundated with media stories about the potential doomsday impacts of climate change, we can become depressed about it. I never have, but apparently many people do. He cites a 2024 American Psychological Association survey where 70% of respondents said they experienced this “eco-anxiety.

     He thinks that a shift from such reporting to more reporting and messaging about adaptation projects will improve the anxiety situation. He sees adaptation as a pragmatic approach, and I agree. He mentions a 2024 Stanford study by historians of societies that confronted climate issues, which led to innovations. A book about similar ways human societies have solved problems I would recommend is biologist Ruth DeFries’ 2014 book, The Big Ratchet: How Humanity Thrives in the Face of Natural Crisis.   

     He explores how solar and wind resources have been increasing in some regions as the world warms up. However, I also know that that is not the case everywhere, and in some areas they have decreased. Wind turbines also lower local wind resources. Thus, I am skeptical that that argument is applicable everywhere.

     The notion of climate migrants has been an issue for some time, especially among climate alarmists. It is true that large human populations in the tropical and subtropical Global South are more vulnerable to many climate change impacts. However, he notes that such migration can have benefits. While that is true, seeing migration as beneficial when there are so many problems with it around the world is not going to be popular. Migration has been the main issue that has led to uprisings of right-wing populism around the world as people feel threatened by migrants taking economic resources and jobs, although in many places, there are excess jobs to be filled.

     He references a 2024 IPCC report that emphasizes the integration of climate mitigation with climate adaptation. Since we need to do both, and mitigation alone with current technology and economic capabilities will not be enough, we should not overemphasize it over adaptation.

     He cites a 2024 NOAA review of climate models that found that many models have overestimated the negative impacts of warming and underestimated humans' abilities to adapt. He suggests that the positive effects of technological breakthroughs and large-scale adaptation projects will also be likely to be underestimated. He seems to suggest that new modeling can and should incorporate positive impacts as well as negative ones.

     He stresses the importance of public discourse in achieving the best agreed-upon solutions. He thinks a wider variety of perspectives will be beneficial to the process.

     In any case, it's great to see a well-informed article that addresses the climate change debate in a smart, pragmatic way.

 

 

References:

 

Why Some Experts Think Letting the Planet Warm Might Be Smarter. Walter Isacson M.Sc. Space Systems. Climate Cosmos. May 11, 2025. Why Some Experts Think Letting the Planet Warm Might Be Smarter