What are Climate Change Policy Priorities?
I am writing from Bonn Germany where I am participating the 23rd meeting of the Adaptation Committee of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Adaptation Committee was established in 2010 at COP 16 in Cancun. As the UNFCCC website notes, "As part of the Cancun Adaptation Framework, Parties established the Adaptation Committee (AC) to promote the implementation of enhanced action on adaptation in a coherent manner under the Convention and the Paris Agreement."
When the climate change negotiations began in the 1990s, country delegations focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). The negotiators deliberated over mitigation policies; ways to reduce GHGs. Developing countries, though, were more concerned about how resilient they were to the impacts of climate change, and how they may need to adapt.
Is adaptation more important than mitigation? Should negotiators, countries, and communities make adaptation a (or the) priority? Think about your hometown and the places you enjoy (e.g., camping, hiking), how they are impacted by climate change, and how they can or should adapt.
I think it's a bit bold to say that we must adapt to the climate crisis when it's not primarily ourselves we've been hurting, but the environment and the plants and animals that have been here long before us--many of which we rely on to survive, such as trees and other plant life. While adaptation is still important, I think mitigation should still be priority. We've reached a point where so many people are aware of the climate crisis and its effects. By adapting to it, it feels like we can ignore it a lot easier and brush aside issues that aren't directly impacting us. But through mitigation, such as lowering carbon emissions, we can really look to restore the environments we've deteriorated. For example, forests have been ravaged by increased fire activity due to global warming and increased burning of fossil fuels, and while this can lead to new growth, it still takes a long time for such an environment to fully recover. We need trees to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, so to expect ourselves and the forest to adapt to increased fire risk rather than mitigate it just seems unproductive.
ReplyDeleteHey Sophia, I totally agree with that mitigation is the best way to start dealing with the climate crisis as adapting seems to be almost impossible. By mitigating the situation small changes can be made to overall have a larger impact and slowly let the damage from climate change lessen. Also by protecting the environment we have now and trying to not let climate change impact it as much we can strive to do better and make changes to halt climate change.
DeleteI have found that failing to encompass a number of aspects into a solution often manages to fall short of an effective solution. Therefore, I find it necessary that the best solution has a duality that focuses on both the process of adaptation and the increase of mitigation so that people can live a good live now and live a good life 50 years from now. So, in that sense, it is necessary for the AC to focus on adaptation and make it a clear priority. This solution could better solidify our current habitat to prevent the overall failure of our systems that exist around us now and also to prepare our future generations for a better life with less carbon emissions and changes in weather.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with you in that regard. It would be wrong to definitively place one category over the other. We have to be pragmatic about things. Climate Change is impacting us now in the present, and will continue to do so in the near future. So we need to adapt to ensure humanity can withstand these impacts on us now, because what good is preparing for the distant future if our people can't even make it through the next year? But you're also right that in creating this adaptation, we have to think in the long term, because the capacities of adaptation too, will eventually be exceeded by the impact of climate change. So we must strike a careful balance of both.
DeleteThank you for sharing your insights from the Adaptation Committee meeting in Bonn, Germany. This discussion about adaptation and mitigation is an important one, and it's great to see that the UNFCCC is taking steps to promote enhanced action on adaptation. while reducing greenhouse gas emissions is crucial to addressing the climate crisis, its equally important to focus on adaptation measures. the impacts of climate change are already being felt around the world, and its essential to ensure that committees and ecosystems are able to adapt to these changes. We need to continue to reduce emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, while also implementing adaptation measure to address the impacts that are already happening. Thinking about my hometown and the places I enjoy, it's clear that climate change is already having an impact. In the PNW, where I'm from, we're seeing longer and more intense wildfire seasons, more frequent and severe heatwaves, and change to our forests and ecosystems. To adapt we need to invest in forest management and wildlife prevention, as well as promoting water conservation.
ReplyDeleteFor me personally reflecting on my hometown and snowboarding as one of my favorite leisure activities, climate change definitely affects this aspect of life. For example, in areas that rely on snow for winter sports like skiing or snowboarding, climate change can significantly reduce the snowpack and shorten the winter season. However, I believe to adapt, ski resorts may need to invest in snowmaking equipment or develop alternative activities that can be offered year-round, such as mountain biking or hiking.
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear the word "adapt," what comes to my mind is the idea of covering up the problem and sweeping it under the rug. Society is ultimately avoiding the severe issue of climate change by arguing that adaptation comes before mitigation. It is preventing the ability of our community from creating positively impactful solutions to climate change. Instead of saying we have to adapt, we must try to fix the issue at hand. It can almost be thought of as why we would focus on inhabiting mars when we could improve the world we currently live in. Like many people, I do not want to give up backpacking in the forests, swimming at the beach, or hang gliding in the sky just because someone said it is better to adapt rather than fix.
ReplyDeletePersonally, climate change is extremely prevalent within my daily life. Every day, I keep on the current events by watching the news channels on television. Recently, I have been seeing a lot of news regarding forest fires in California, and this made me feel more aware about the recent effects of climate change. In the news recently, the Willow Project has been approved. I read an article about it, and I am very worried about the possible consequences of the Willow Project. It may have many negative effects on the world and contribute to the ever-increasing problem that is climate change. Here is the link for the article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/14/biden-president-approved-alaska-willow-project
ReplyDeletehttps://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-s-the-difference-between-climate-change-mitigation-and-adaptation#:~:text=The%20more%20we%20reduce%20emissions,us%20in%20the%20foreseeable%20future.
ReplyDeleteI want to refer to this article which says "The more we reduce emissions right now, the easier it will be to adapt to the changes we can no longer avoid". I feel like this sentence from the article is significant because climate change is currently impacting us and the environment and I feel like if we prioritize adaptation more, we would lose the side where we need to fix the issue because it will end up biting us back if it's not being addressed. With that being said, we can't just completely ignore adaptation and just focus on mitigation because things are changing and we humans have to learn ways to adapt to those changes. It comes hand-to-hand with one another and we just need to find a balance between them.
Both adaptation and mitigation are very crucial components when it comes to addressing climate change. Mitigation focuses more on reducing greenhouse gasses to limit the extent of climate change, whereas adaptation seeks to reduce the negative impacts of climate change that are currently occurring or are expected to occur in the future. It is very important to recognize that the level of emphasis placed on adaptation versus mitigation will depend on the context and priorities of different countries and regions. For example, a developing country may focus more on adoption due to their vulnerability to climate change impacts and the limited resources available for mitigation measures. But on the other hand, wealthier and more developed countries, with a greater capacity for mitigation may place a greater emphasis on reducing emissions. Ultimately, both adaptation and mitigation are important when addressing the challenge of climate change, and countries and regions should work on coming up with a balanced approach to address both.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing and giving us an idea on what different countries have said during these events. I think its important to discuss and shine light on what countries are doing to slow and eventually stop climate change. When hearing how resilient developing countries were to mitigating GHG's and instead bringing up adaption, I think of this as a way for them to dismiss this problem and how instead of getting rid of GHG's at all, we should instead keep them but adapt to them. While I may not know everything there is about climate change, based on previous articles as well as my own research, I've come to the conclusion that adaption, while certainly needed in some aspects, won't solve the problem of climate change which mitigation and can do. I think they may say this because as a developing country, fossil fuels are such a cheap and effective way to expand and grow their country in terms of development and without them, will slow them down significantly and cost them lots.
ReplyDeleteI found this article https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/, that explains the difference between mitigating and adapting and how both are needed to solve climate change quickly and effectively, with the least amount of harms. It also goes into what NASA is specifically doing in the fight to stop climate change.
Although both mitigation and adaptations are important factors, I believe that we should still focus on mitigation as the main priority. Mitigation is more about reducing negative impacts where as adaptation seeks to modify our current lifestyles in response to climate change. I think that it's important to have a balance of both mitigation and adaptation, but mitigating the problem is needed to prevent it from getting worse. Mitigation should always be a priority, but adaptation should serve as a back up plan. By adapting to climate change, it feels like we are ignoring the cause of the issue at hand, it feels like we're just brushing it off.
ReplyDeleteBoth mitigation and adaption should both simultaneously play a role in the way we go about looking at the impacts of climate change. For example, countries like us, the United States still face the impacts of climate change, however, certain parts of the world like Sub-Subhadra Africa, Middle East and more for example are exposed to more severe effects of climate change (1). Because of that, it would be best for those sectors of the worlds to be focusing on what they can do to adapt to the current world they live in while higher income countries who generally produce more emissions (like the U.S. and China for example) should be focused on how to actively mitigate the effects of climate change since they are powers who have a more flourishing economy and are able to make a switch to renewable energy focused systems, thus, mitigating the effects of climate change.
ReplyDelete(1) https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-map-shows-the-countries-most-at-risk-and-least-at-risk-against-climate-change-28_fig1_348437846
I think that in many ways, there are valid arguments to be made about why adapting to the climate crisis rather than mitigating it is a viable option. However, in my eyes, it is too early to make this decision. This is because I feel there is still an opportunity for us, as a society, to mitigate the effects of climate change. In many ways, pivoting to an adaptation strategy over a mitigation strategy is more or less the community giving up on climate change and making the decision to cut our losses. But I feel this is an example of a false dichotomy. Why should we move to an adaptation strategy when it may still be possible to do both?
ReplyDeleteBoth adaptation and mitigation are good options but mitigation would be the better choice because mitigation works towards preventing and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while adaptation works towards adapting to the effects of climate change. While adaptation should be done for our current safety, mitigation needs to be focused on for our future. Adaptation should be done by those being affect right now by climate change or are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Mitigation should be done no matter what since it's to prevent the climate from getting worse and to reduce the amount of adaptation needed due to climate change.
ReplyDeleteWe already know that we have passed the guaranteed amount of emissions to reach the 1 degrees Celsius increase in temperature. With current emission policies, the world will reach a 3.6 degrees Celsius increase by 2100. With even our best efforts to mitigate the worst effects of climate change by a reduction to only a 2 degrees celsius increase, we will still face significant climate impacts. Thus, we are at a point where adaptation will be necessary, and developing countries will be facing the most significant challenges in the coming decades. I believe that we should do as much as we can to mitigate climate change; however, it is also necessary to invest resources into adaptation. In the future, there will be no stopping some amount of climate impacts, so we must do all that to adapt to them. It is in the best interest of every country to invest in climate adaptation. The less that developed countries do to aid the adaptation of developing countries, the more resultant climate refugees will have to be accepted into their countries. Thus, while mitigation is incredibly important, we also need to approach the inevitable impacts of climate change from an adaptive perspective.
ReplyDeleteI believe that mitigation must be a priority. Although the effects of greenhouse gases and climate change are not much prevalent in the United States as it is in other parts of the world, it is only a matter of time until our nation begins to face serious consequences as well. We may not be able to go to our favorite park or forest anymore, but it will be filled with buildings and cars. That's why we need to reduce GHG levels as soon as possible. It is true that the process is complicated and time-consuming. However, the time we take to adapt can be used to mitigate GHG emissions instead and bring less losses to other parts of the world. Developing countries should not take responsibility and do what may not be the best for them, even if they lose what may deem to be necessary for them. Considering the fact that other countries lost so much already, complications brought from mitigation is not much of a problem for developing countries. Also, overflow of resources and products cause many problems, which is a lose-lose situation for us when it comes to GHG emissions. If we can reduce what we do not necessarily need, then GHG emissions from transportation, production, and waste will all be reduced.
ReplyDeleteHere is an article concerning the possible reductions for unnecessary GHG emissions:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/year-of-living-better/how-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint
I completely understanding and agree with your argument in favor of prioritizing mitigation policies, although I believe that it is situation-dependent and in certain cases, especially for countries where adaptation appears to be their most viable option, it can be the better choice.
DeleteIn terms of climate change policy priorities, I believe that we should focus on both mitigation and adaptation strategies, since while mitigation policies are essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preventing further damage to the environment, adaptation policies are important to vulnerable communities, as they must first adapt to the impacts of climate change that have disastrous consequences, especially to the disadvantaged communities. For instance, as the professor mentioned, developing countries are more concerned about the impacts of climate change and their ability to adapt to these changes (rather than reverse the consequences that are largely the fault of the first world), especially considering how they are not in a place of great recognition and might on the world stage (as the United States, for instance, is) and do not have as much power or resources to help mitigate the negative effects of climate change.
By taking into account the different impacts of climate change on different communities (as well as understanding their perspectives) as well as countries and individuals impacted, this will aid us in putting forth effective climate change policies. In certain circumstances, it makes sense to prioritize adaptation policies while in other circumstances, mitigation will help best. I think considering the impacts of climate change on the most vulnerable populations helps to better make sense of adaptation policies.
I believe that by succumbing to adaptation we are in a way quitting on the problem and accepting climate change as a defeat. I believe that in order to do what is write we must prioritize mitigation. By focusing on mitigation, we can work towards solving the problem instead of adapting to the problems consequences. As someone from eastern Washington who experiences the side effects and consequences of global warming through intense fires, I think that adapting to this is somewhat unhealthy and not acceptable. In scenarios like this I believe that adaption can be helpful in order to ensure that in the case of fires like these we can prevent the amount of harm done, but I believe that we must prioritize mitigation to ensure that we are not put in these situations in the first place. As we are the primary cause of global warming, I believe that it is our job to fix the problem that we made as it affects every aspect of the earth, and we can do this better through mitigation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Oliver, that by adapting to these extreme weather events and impacts of climate change, we are accepting defeat in a way, when we could instead working on fixing the issue at hand.
DeleteI think what is so difficult for different countries to come to agreement regarding climate change policies is the fact that each international state contributes differently. In general, there are small things that individuals and/or groups of people can do to reduce their carbon footprint, but in the grand scheme of the issue, the most responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases are the big industries and corporations with the majority of the worlds wealth. This can create an issue among states within the Global South who are impacted the most by the affects of climate change, while also contributing the least to the problem.
ReplyDeleteI believe mitigation is the right approach in addressing climate change. Mitigation tackles the cause of climate change by slowing or stopping the rise in fossil fuel emissions, whereas adaption tackles its effects by adjusting to actual or expected future climate. I believe mitigation is the most ideal strategy because I believe we have too much carbon already and adapting would further damage our ozone layer. An interesting link I found about the differences between Mitigation and Adaption is from Nasa... https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/
ReplyDeleteHey Ethan, I totally agree with you here! Mitigation seems to be the way to go in my mind too considering it not only deals with the here and now, but also preventative measures to prevent bad circumstances for worsening. I also read an interesting article a while ago (I'll link it here) that discusses the importance of mitigation and I found it interesting and definitely something that pertains to this conversation in regards to the debate on mitigation or not. https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-adaptation-vs-mitigation-why-does-it-matter
DeleteCountries and people around the world are going to need to implement both adaptation and mitigation strategies in order to best cope with the consequences of climate change. People in Russia or Canada might not be affected by climate change drastically, but places such as Pakistan or Sudan are going to need strategies to cope with the drastic change in living conditions. While it is optimal that we can figure out a global solution and stop climate change before it spirals out of control and hurts people, in reality, we need solutions to help adapt to a new climate.
ReplyDelete