In the run-up to the recent UN meeting on climate change in Lima, much of the world’s attention focused on how strongly nations would commit to a framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. After all, governments’ commitment to such a framework is vital to ensure that the agreement to be signed in Paris in December keeps global temperatures from rising more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
The good news is that the Lima “Call for Climate Action” made sufficient progress to enable preparations for a comprehensive climate deal in Paris. However, it also left many questions unresolved — a shortcoming that was reflected in discussions on adaptation. Though the new emphasis on this important topic is welcome, how to deliver the funding, technology and knowledge that nations, communities and ecosystems need to adjust to climate change requires further articulation.
Even if we limit the rise in global temperatures, climate change is here to stay. Communities are already facing more extreme and frequent droughts, floods and other weather events. These consequences will only intensify.
Yet the UN Environment Programme’s first adaptation report, released in Lima, showed that the world remains wholly unprepared to cover the costs of adaptation, and those costs are set to be far higher than was previously thought. According to the report, even if the temperature target is met, the cost of adaptation will reach two to three times the previously anticipated US$70 billion to US$100 billion per year by 2050 — an increase of as much as five-fold is possible, though less likely.
If global temperatures exceed the 2°C ceiling significantly, adaptation costs could reach double the worst-case figures, placing a crippling burden on the world economy. If world leaders needed another compelling reason to reach a deal in Paris that keeps global temperatures below the target, this is it.
The burden of adjustment is to be borne by everyone, but is likely to be heaviest for developing nations, least-developed nations and Small Island Developing States. Though international funding is available, costs are likely to fall largely to nations, with governments forced to divert scarce resources from development projects to adaptation initiatives.
To be sure, the world is making some progress toward addressing adaptation needs. Adaptation funding from public sources reached US$23 billion to US$26 billion in 2012-2013. According to a recent assessment by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, global financial flows for mitigation and adaptation measures amounted to US$340 billion to US$650 billion in 2011-2012.
Furthermore, pledges at the Lima conference by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Norway and Peru bring the Green Climate Fund to nearly US$10.2 billion, and the impact of climate change is increasingly, though still inadequately, being factored into national and local budgets.
However, much more financing is needed to prevent a funding gap after 2020. For example, the Green Climate Fund is supposed to reach US$100 billion per year — ten times higher than it is now — within the next five years.
Commitments on adaptation in the Paris agreement would go a long way toward closing this gap. The international auctioning of emissions allowances and allowances in domestic emissions-trading schemes, a carbon tax, revenues from international transport, a surcharge on electricity transmission and financial transaction taxes could generate as much as US$220 billion per year in additional revenues.
Of course, funding is not the only component of a successful adaptation strategy. As the adaptation report said, closing gaps in technology and knowledge is also crucial.
Many technologies that could help nations adapt to the consequences of climate change already exist. For example, by planting scientifically engineered crops that grow faster, farmers can harvest them before, say, cyclone season, which would become increasingly violent as global temperatures rise.
However, there remain significant barriers to adoption — barriers that governments should dismantle through a combination of incentives, regulatory reform and institutional upgrading.
The benefits of such action would extend beyond increased climate resilience. Accelerating harvests would mean higher, more reliable production with less labor — a formula for stronger, more stable livelihoods. Policymakers should thus pursue integrated solutions that combine climate-change adaptation and mitigation with broader societal concerns, including development.
Knowledge would offer similarly monumental benefits. Science magazine recently published research suggesting that universal education, by giving populations the appropriate intellectual tools and skills they need, is the single most efficient mechanism for adapting to climate change and reducing fatalities associated with extreme weather events.
International support on adaptation — incorporating financing, technology and knowledge — could go a long way toward advancing nations’ sustainable development aspirations. World leaders should recognize this — and establish adaptation as an integral part of the global climate change agreement to be reached in Paris.
Some argue that the global economy cannot afford adaptation, but, as the latest evidence showed, delaying action would mean higher costs later. If we truly want to build a sustainable, prosperous and equitable future, we cannot afford to wait.
Achim Steiner is executive director of the UN Environment Programme and UN undersecretary-general.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and