Adaptation is back on the agenda

For most global warming activists adaptation has been a taboo topic. Al Gore describes it as "kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our skins". However the reality of global warming dynamics is pushing adaptation back on the agenda. Both Stern report (despite its numerous shortcomings) and IPCC are talking adaptation as a viable option. This article in the Nature makes a strong case for adaptation:

First, there is a timescale mismatch. Whatever actions ultimately lead to the decarbonization of the global energy system, it will be many decades before they have a discernible effect on the climate.

Second, vulnerability to climate-related impacts on society are increasing for reasons that have nothing to do with greenhouse-gas emissions, such as rapid population growth along coasts and in areas with limited water supplies.
This is particularly evident in relation to Katrina disaster. While most debate focused on if Katrina was related to global warming, scientist have long warned of inevitability of Katrina-like disaster.

Finally, those who will suffer the brunt of climate impacts are now demanding that the international response to climate change focus on increasing the resilience of vulnerable societies to damaging climate events that - like Katrina - will occur regardless of efforts to mitigate emissions

I very much liked the tropical diseases example in relation to adaptation vs. mitigation:
For instance, one study found that without taking into account climate change, the global population at risk from malaria would increase by 100% by 2080, whereas the effect of climate change would increase the risk of malaria by at most 7%. Yet tropical disease risk is repeatedly invoked by climate-mitigation advocates as a key reason to curb emissions. In a world where political attention is limited, such distortions reinforce the current neglect of adaptation.

Adaptation has another very important strength. Rich countries currently argue over, commit and ultimately miss CO2 mitigation targets. This process is set to continue for the foreseeable future until the large-scale energy alternatives are developed. On the other hand we already have the technology to build protective walls to stop rising seas, set up water infrastructure, make buildings less prone to damage and keep tropical diseases at bay. Even with the best intentions it is easy to miss the CO2 targets, it will be a lot harder to miss a construction schedule.