There's an odd two-sided dynamic around resistance to implementing adaptation measures as a response to fossil-fueled global warming. One group (representing f

There's an odd two-sided dynamic around resistance to implementing adaptation measures as a response to fossil-fueled global warming. One group (representing fossil fuel-linked economies) doesn't want to admit that adaptation is necessary, as that entails accepting that the scientific understanding of our current climate trajectory is robust, and another group (representing politically-minded climate activists) seems to think accepting the necessity of adaptation means 'giving up' on stabilizing the climate and getting off fossil fuels. Neither of these are rational viewpoints - the tipping point for the climate transition has come and gone, and even an immediate cessation of fossil fuel use would still entail 100+ years of warming at rates comparable to the past 40 years (likely greater) due to the lag in the system (ocean response times) as well as to permafrost thaw. Claiming this isn't the case is really just another kind of denialism. On top of that, existing fossil fuel infrastructure and production appears set to continue for the next 30 years at current rates (just look at all the new fossil-fuel burning cars, trucks, jets, etc. coming off the production lines each year, or at the business model projections of all the major fossil fuel producers) and despite the political posturing of some politicians in the USA and other fossil fuel producers, there's no real interest in replacing fossil fuels with renewables on an accelerated timeline, except in those countries that have to import all their fossil fuels from abroad, and even there progress is fairly slow. The only response that makes any sense is a massive nationwide infrastructure development project designed to mitigate heat waves, wildfires, droughts, floods, extreme storms and seawater incursion.