Well, we need to do both. There's no way to avoid some pretty painful consequences, and we need to be prepared for that, but we still need to clamp down hard on

Well, we need to do both. There's no way to avoid some pretty painful consequences, and we need to be prepared for that, but we still need to clamp down hard on emissions to mitigate the worst effects down the line. I don't think it's fair to say we have no intention of stoping it. We were never going to prevent every consequence of climate change. It looks like we are not going to meet our targets, and even if we do the consequences are probably going to be worse than projected, but I think it's vitally important to stress that the steps we have taken so far were worthwhile and do matter. There's a real risk of complacency leading to resistance to further action, because it doesn't matter anymore because we've already lost. I see this on the denier side already, a lot of skeptics are switching from "it's a hoax" to, "well we can't stop it anyway so why bother trying?". That attitude can be given no quarter, comfort or succour. The positive steps we have taken have had a real, valuable positive effect, and we need to do more. I'm no fundamentalist on this, I'm a pragmatist. We do need to balance mitigation with prevention, and we're not going to be able to do as much prevention in practice than we'd like. This is the art of the possible, but there is a lot that we have done and a lot more that we can practically do, and it's all worthwhile. We need to convert those former skeptics into allies.