Is adaptation the most important climate policy area?
When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in the 1990s, negotiators focused on greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs. They discussed mitigation actions; ways to reduce GHGs. The landmark Kyoto Protocol of 1997 (at COP 3) emphasized mitigation, with commitments from developed countries to reduce their production of and reliance on fossil fuels. The 2015 Paris Agreement set the goal of a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2050. This goal would be achieved only if developed countries - the major GHG emitters - transitioned significantly to renewable energy sources.
This has not happened. Countries are expanding their use of renewables but not fast enough th meet the 1.5 degree goal. Consequently, negotiators now devote considerable time to discussing adaptation - how to deal with a warming world and its consequencxes, such as wildfires, drought, intense hurricanes and typhoons...
These articles relate to the importance of adaptation. Should countries accept climate change and its impacts as inevitable and focus on how to cope? How to adapt?
https://apple.news/Am9kdC1oQSmWtoYMC2QKOXQ
https://mailchi.mp/insideclimatenews/human-triggered-wildfires-are-more-destructive?e=de0f837a2a
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/13/no-sign-of-promised-fossil-fuel-transition-as-emissions-hit-new-high?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Hi Dr. Walker! I think that adaption to the changing circumstances is crucial in time now, but I think for the future, prevention is also crucial. We need to fix the damage that has been done now, but we also need to think about the future and start putting policies in place that will help future generations. I found this article done by the Washington Post to be interesting and relevant to this issue. It goes over 10 recent climate change policies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2022/04/21/climate-change-policy-examples-list/
ReplyDeleteI found this really interesting, this relates pretty significantly to subjects we discussed recently in my environmental biology course, I think as global temperatures rise exponentially we need to consider not just atmospheric temperatures, but oceanic, and how the expanse of warming water with addition to melting glacial reserves will impact coastal communities. We're already seeing sweeping consequences for countries around the equator, and I think more resources need to be devoted to aiding those communities and preparing them for future cataclysmic storms. For countries with longer before facing serious repercussions of climate change, there should be a sense of responsibility for the lives their inaction has put at risk. I believe the consequences of the US election will be horrific for the countries most vulnerable and the negligence exhibited will manifest partially as a result of the global consensus of apathy for the state of our climate.
ReplyDeletehttps://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/?intent=121 This graph from NASA I used as a resource for a project within the course when discussing the exponential rate of warming facing oceans leading to ecological consequences as well as harm to communities, infrastructure, and reliant economies.
This is a great topic. I believe that just because the goals will not be met, that does not mean that we shouldn't still strive to improve and implement more clean energy as a substitute for fossil fuel energy. It is important to make adaptations so that we can better deal with the current consequences of climate change, but it is also important to put funding into research and advancing the clean energy field. Advancements made in the clean energy field will make the substitution for cleaner energy more of a reality, because they are certainly drawbacks to every clean energy source. Here is a source that describes fast cooling reactors, and how they would allow spent nuclear fuel to be recycled and reused: https://www.anl.gov/article/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy
ReplyDeleteHello Nick. I agree that simply giving up and focusing on adapting is not a sustainable goal, as our greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel use is only going to continue to increase. Innovation is happening in the field of clean energy, but it might not be fast enough for full commercial production, which is why we need more funding and support from the government. I think that nuclear energy, which provides extremely clean and efficient energy is going to be the solution to these problem, it has the possibility to overtake fossil fuels, but we first must challenge our reliance on the use of our fossil fuels. If we make changes too late, we will not only have to find out how to combat climate change but also how to reverse some of the effects that will be caused by the long term effects, like increased and decreased temperature as well as more extreme natural disasters.
DeleteI believe that although it is likely that the goal will not be achieved, it should not mean giving up on reversing climate change entirely. The frustrating part about the goal is that it is completely doable. The only thing that is stopping us from reaching it is greed. If politians made the hard decisions of weeding fossil fuels, this threshold could be easily met. However, this will most likely never be done, since they care more about their money and public perception than the future of our planet. I think it would be helpful to start looking into ways to adapt to climate change without giving up the hope that we still can reverse it. It is important to be prepared for the worst-case scenario always, however I do not think we should abandon reversing climate change until the last possible second, since that would be the best outcome. This threshold is best explained in the IPCC report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what you pointed out here. I also think that mitigation should not be fully transitioned to adaptation, because it is not yet too late to try to meet these goals. I think both mitigation and adaptation can be done at the same time, as long as countries are willing to allocate resources towards doing so. This article I found explains the difference between the two in terms of the climate and actions that could potentially be taken, and certainly makes it seem like it would be possible not to have to choose between one or the other.
Deletehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/en/about/contact-us/faqs/what-is-the-difference-between-adaptation-and-mitigation#:~:text=In%20essence%2C%20adaptation%20can%20be,of%20climate%20change%20less%20severe.
Adaptation is not the most important aspect of addressing climate change. It is possible to have net-zero emissions globally. Of course, while this is not realistic at the moment with many developing countries it is something that can be achieved. Would I say that coping for the issues solved by climate change is the most important area of climate policy? No. I would say it is more important to strive towards a net-zero emission world and enact policies that further the world in this goal. Still, is adaptation important? In some areas it is essential. Water temperatures are something that change gradually. Currently the water temperatures are getting too high for coral reefs. Even if all carbon emissions were eliminated immediately it is possible that the reefs could still be wiped out if not lose huge populations. Therefore, to keep the coral reefs alive adaptation is essential. Adaptation must occur with the effects of climate change to protect the world we know. Despite the importance of adaptation the focus should still remain on solving the issue rather than mitigating the effects.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.sciencenews.org/article/net-zero-carbon-emissions-climate#:~:text=The%20goal%20is%20to%20achieve,we%20produce%20and%20consume%20energy.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/restoring-coral-reefs
https://www.brown.edu/news/2024-02-05/net-zero-paper
Given the fact that it is pretty unlikely the original goals will be achieved without drastic changes in funding and support, I would say that adapting to the likely outcomes based on current progress is important. Naturally preventing climate change as much of possible is a desirable goal, but given that the needed support is not there for prevention to happen at a necessary rate, it is important to also look at the worst-case scenarios where the "climate tipping point" is reached.
ReplyDeleteThis article goes into more detail with the change that is necessary to avoid reaching the tipping point: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_abc5a69e-en.html
I think creating plans for adaptation is an effective strategy as long as we keep the right mentality about it. Just because the effects of climate change are likely to start taking affect it does not mean that we completely stop trying to prevent the damage that could be done to future generations. Balancing the two is critical for the future, but it is still valid to try and make necessary changes to areas that will be affected in the coming years. Farming is one of the main things that may have to shift if climate change continues to get worse. The link here provides some general insight as well as a video on what that that could look like.
ReplyDeletehttps://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/food_supply/student_materials/1169
Hi Dr. Walker. I think that that one reason adapting to climate change has gotten more focus than preventing climate change is because it feels easier to deal with and adapt to the consequences than it is to stop contributing to the problem. While a focus on adaptation isn't necessarily bad, we should still remember that there are steps that can be taken to prevent and stop the damages of climate change.
ReplyDeleteHi Dr. Walker
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting conversation as many people believe in coping with these climate crisis's by learning to cope with the damages, while others find that finding solutions is the most effective way to deal with these issues and stopping them from being damaging later in the future. In my Intro to Climate Change class we learned about the different ways we're able to invest in sustainability projects to adapt/help these environmental issues. Projects like renewable energy infrastructure, green urban planning, and reforestation can simultaneously address mitigation and adaptation goals according to this article I found https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/7/10/119
Hi Dr. Walker. While I think being optimistic is more healthy, preparing for the worst is always a must. I am a firm backer of Optimistic Pessimism. It is a no brainer that we should continue our search for cleaner energy sources and reduce emissions as much as possible, but with that said, we are already seeing the negative effects of climate change. While I don't think it was directly responsible (I could be wrong it was a while ago) a few years back my home state of California was plagued with massive wildfires. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWAiTzAD9hA
ReplyDeleteThe mega drought that Cali was in for the past few years made the fire extremely difficult to fight and it ended up causing a ton of damage and even ended lives. We need to start preparing for the worst so that when a crisis even worse does happen, we can be ready for it and not have lives ruined or ended.
Hi Dr. Walker. Adaptation is undeniably crucial as the impacts of climate change become more immediate and severe. However, I worry that focusing too heavily on adaptation might signal a dangerous resignation—that we accept rising emissions and worsening climate conditions as inevitable.
ReplyDeleteWithout aggressive mitigation efforts, the challenges we adapt to will only intensify, creating a vicious cycle of escalating costs and impacts. How can nations strike a balance between investing in adaptation to protect vulnerable communities and doubling down on mitigation efforts to prevent further harm?
Additionally, should wealthier nations bear greater responsibility for funding both mitigation and adaptation, given their historical contributions to greenhouse gas emissions? I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on how this balance could be achieved.