i guess the engineers will have a lot of work to do.

it's like reading about roman citizens in the dark age, who were prevented from reading their own language by the tyranny of the church, who demanded they live like children in febrile servitude, and eventually forgot their own civilization, having to relearn it from translations into other languages. in canada, we are experiencing lost knowledge, how about that. hooray for neo-liberalism.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-poor-flood-risk-maps-or-none-at-all-are-keeping-canadian-communities/

the recent ipcc reports have been clear that mitigation and adaptation ought to be a part of the strategies taken by policy institutions to reduce the effects of climate change. some warming has already occurred, and some more is inevitable even under the best case scenarios, and there is no evidence we are anywhere near any best case scenario. governments need to react to science to prepare for the future, and all evidence right now suggests we are heading into a rapidly warming future; of course, it needs to present adaptation strategies. in context, that's it's job.

however, adaptation policies shouldn't ever be seen as a replacement for emissions reductions legislation; pointing to the inevitability of substantive change in the recent future doesn't negate the requirement to minimize it, but in fact should draw attention to the importance of doing so. no species has an infinite ability to adapt. i worry that the government may be pivoting out of a file it's really made a mess of, and was maybe never as committed to as they advertised they were. the carbon tax didn't work as a license to pollute; maybe, "it's evolution, baby!" will give them the sideways glances that they seek. i've been arguing that the government needs to find a way to counteract the cynicism in order to survive; meanwhile, they're actually broadcasting that they're considering running on it.

there's little question that many municipalities in canada are going to require some engineering help in controlling the water surrounding their communities, and that most solutions will need to be paid for with state funds. if we're talking about reality, it is that the state needs to adopt a development stance in order to adapt, which means prioritizing the flow of public funds to mass infrastructure projects. talking about adapting is empty rhetoric, if there's no actual action being taken. adapting is expensive, hard work.

so, yes - flooding is the new normal. yes - we need to adapt to that. but, we shouldn't let the acknowledgement of this truth cloud us to the continuing need to get emissions under control.