Abstract

Brooks convincingly makes the case that the current arguments for climate mitigation and adaptation fail. Each of the arguments discussed by Brooks appeals to end-state solutions that are some combination of poorly defined, inadequate, inappropriate, or are impossible. Thus, those arguments provide us with relatively limited guidance regarding what we should do about climate change. I hope to extend Brooks’ article by providing a rough sketch of how we might think about responding to climate change that does not depend upon achieving a particular end state.