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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under