Climate Change CD

The plenary discussions and breakout group deliberations are summarized below. The Water Quality Board

subsequently incorporated many of the insightful comments provided by the workshop participants into the

revised white paper. Written comments received subsequent to the workshop were also taken into consideration.

The Board limited changes to those that corrected errors of fact and to those that extended, amplified, or clarified

the information presented.

The Board also incorporated a number of key points into its advice to the Commission.

Some of the comments received were beyond the intended scope of the white paper, and other suggestions would

have entailed additional time and investigation by the authors. Although the white paper would be more fo-

cussed by addressing these additional comments and suggestions, the Board concluded that there is no “end

point.” The information base - hence, our understanding of issues, impacts, and responses - will continue to

evolve. The Board further concluded that the white paper is a snapshot in time and - although there are gaps -

provides a good overview of the issue.

TERMINOLOGY — THE CONNOTATION OF ADAPTATION

Milt Clark advocated against using the word “adaptation.” The term implies that climate change will be easy to

adjust to and that people will just have to live with it. The draft white paper did not make the point that adapta-

tions will not result in complete success nor “solve” problems posed by climate change. Clark preferred the term

“strategies / responses” or “coping.” Alain Bourque said that the idea of adaptation is captured in the phrase

“limiting the adverse effects of climate change.” Jim Bruce defended the use of “adaptation,” noting that some

of the effects will not be negative. “Adaptation” allows flexibility to discuss changes that should be made to

address beneficial, as well as negative, effects. John Carey also defended the term and said that “strategies /

responses” is too limiting, noting that impacts cannot always be addressed with strategies. At times it is neces-

sary to adapt expectations.

Clark did not object to the term “adaptation” if the phrase were, for example, “adaptive action” rather than a

more passive “adaptive measures” and if the white paper recognized the importance of mitigation efforts and that

both adaptation and mitigation are required to address the climate change issue. The white paper, at a minimum,

should recognize current mitigation measures.

THE WHITE PAPER

The authors provided an overview of the contents of the white paper. Their presentations are summarized below.

Details are in the white paper (Part 3 of this report). The authors’ visuals are available on the web at http://