Researchers are continuing to extol the virtues of adaptation as the approach that can eventually result in mitigating climate change. The added benefits of developing adaptive capacity is quite enticing but can this offer any reprieve for the time required for adequate implementation of effective mitigation strategies?
My short answer would be "yes, but no".
With that I mean that it seems obvious that an increase in adaptative capacity would reduce the need for mitigation. And perhaps one could think of cases for which this would hold. Yet, my answer would be no, because:
- temporal scale mismatch. More mitigation now, would have an effect 20-30 years from now, while the effect of adaptation is (almost) immediate. So climate related current problems need to be dealt with, and for that we need to increase adaptive capacity. Also the reverse is true.
- spatial scale mismatch. Mitigation of emissions is by and large a possibility for the developed world, while the impact of climate change(and thus the need for adaptation) will by and large happen in the developing world. This cannot be simply substituted.
- complexity of the problem. The problem we are dealing with is of such high complexity that it is impossible to know what the effect will be of postponing mitigation of emissions. Under no circumstance can investing in adaptation be used as an excuse not to invest in mitigation!
My short answer would be "yes, but no".
With that I mean that it seems obvious that an increase in adaptative capacity would reduce the need for mitigation. And perhaps one could think of cases for which this would hold. Yet, my answer would be no, because:
- temporal scale mismatch. More mitigation now, would have an effect 20-30 years from now, while the effect of adaptation is (almost) immediate. So climate related current problems need to be dealt with, and for that we need to increase adaptive capacity. Also the reverse is true.
- spatial scale mismatch. Mitigation of emissions is by and large a possibility for the developed world, while the impact of climate change(and thus the need for adaptation) will by and large happen in the developing world. This cannot be simply substituted.
- complexity of the problem. The problem we are dealing with is of such high complexity that it is impossible to know what the effect will be of postponing mitigation of emissions. Under no circumstance can investing in adaptation be used as an excuse not to invest in mitigation!
My view on the matter is well summarized by Kasper. I would add that the necessity for investments in adaptation is basically imposed by two factors. One is natural, meaning that even if emissions are mitigated now, the effects of global warming will likely be felt for several more decades due simply to the natural response of the climate system. The other is purely "man-made", meaning that the unwillingness to enact any serious measure toward mitigation by the political class in the developed and developing world means that emissions of GHG will continue rising in the foreseeable future. For these reasons, some have decided to act:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-climate-newyork-plan-idUSBRE95A10120130611
I agree with Robert and Kasper and just to add i will say adaptation means no need to mitigate as it will only get advanced and further advanced.
Adaptation and mitigation should not be treated as dependent topics but rather as independent,even though related they are very much independent in application.One of the event is not deterministic of the other.
Adaptation is also a problem to the developed countries as well e.g. The flood in central Europe at the moment therefore the role of adaptation and mitigation should not only be prescribed for a certain region.
Thank you for your responses. Both adaptation and mitigation are essential, the search for an optimal mix of both options has been regarded as fallacy. Do you think that adaptation should be unburdened from the climate change framework and treated as improving resilience under sustainable development?
You write that "an optimal mix of both options has been regarded as fallacy". But why? It seems to be obvious that it is optimal to mitigate AND adapt. The only issue is that effective mitigation requires international policy coordination which has proven to be difficult (Copenhagen, Cancun, and so forth). We are working on a project that examines how adaptation measures (that countries can implement unilaterally) impact their willingness or incentives to join an effective post-Kyoto mitigation agreement. Our (preliminary) results suggest that adaptation would lower the stakes of an international agreement, it would lower free-rider incentives and increase cooperation. Here is a game-theoretic modelling approach: http://cere.se/documents/wp/CERE_WP2011-9.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change