Higgins replies: Brian Cluggish argues for aggressive mitigation based on the potential impacts of climate change on biological resources. That is a perfectly defensible policy preference for anyone concerned about the consequences of disturbing the climate system. However, other readers may be more risk averse to climate policy. Those who own or work in coal-fired power plants, for example, might worry about responding too aggressively. The societal risks of climate change and climate policy are highly asymmetric but a full discussion of response options must account for the full spectrum of views.
At times, Cluggish presents climate policy as zero-sum—more attention to one approach means less attention for others. That is a false choice.
We could simultaneously mitigate, adapt, geoengineer, and build the knowledge base; comprehensive risk management would involve a combination of approaches. Approaches might come at the expense of one another if resources—time, money, human capital, or political will—are limited, but approaches could also encourage and reinforce each other.
Cluggish mistakenly interprets my article as promoting one policy approach at the expense of another. My article, by design, leaves policy preferences to readers because choosing among the options involves personal preferences, interests, and moral or ethical judgments. Science can inform but not determine those. A fair and objective presentation of the options gives readers the best chance to understand the tradeoffs and decide for themselves what combination of approaches would be best.
