Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help this article by looking
better, more reliable sources, or by checking whether the references meet the criteria for reliable
sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged or deleted. (June 2010)
Adaptation to global warming is a response to climate change that seeks to reduce the vulnerability of social and
biological systems to climate change effects.[1] Even if emissions are stabilized relatively soon, climate change and its
effects will last many years, and adaptation will be necessary.[2] Climate change adaptation is especially important in
developing countries since those countries are predicted to bear the brunt of the effects of climate change.[3] That is,
the capacity and potential for humans to adapt (called adaptive capacity) is unevenly distributed across different
regions and populations, and developing countries generally have less capacity to adapt (Schneider et al., 2007).
[4]
Adaptive capacity is closely linked to social and economic development (IPCC, 2007).[5] The economic costs of
adaptation to climate change are likely to cost billions of dollars annually for the next several decades, though the
amount of money needed is unknown. Donor countries promised an annual $100 billion by 2020 through the Green
Climate Fund for developing countries to adapt to climate change. However, while the fund was set up during COP16
in Cancn, concrete pledges by developed countries have not been forthcoming.[6] [7][8] The adaptation challenge grows
with the magnitude and the rate of climate change. A theoretical, physiological limit to adaptation is that humans
cannot survive mean temperatures of above 35 C (95 F).[citation needed]
Another policy response to climate change, known as climate change mitigation (Verbruggen, 2007)[9] is to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and/or enhance the removal of these gases from the
atmosphere (through carbon sinks).[10] Even the most effective reductions in emissions, however, would not prevent
further climate change impacts, making the need for adaptation unavoidable (Klein et al., 2007).[11] In a literature
assessment, Klein et al. (2007) assessed options for adaptation. They concluded, with very high confidence, that in
the absence of mitigation efforts, the effects of climate change would reach such a magnitude as to make adaptation
impossible for some natural ecosystems. For human systems, the economic and social costs of unmitigated climate
change would be very high.
Contents
[hide]
2.3.4 Mitigation
2.3.5 UNFCCC
3 Conceptualising adaptation
5 Costs
6 Adaptation mechanisms
7 Methods of adaptation
o
7.6 Geoengineering
7.8 Migration
7.9 Insurance
8 Adaptation finance
10 See also
11 References
12 Sources
o
Economists, using cost-benefit analysis, have attempted to calculate an "optimal" balance of the costs and benefits
between climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation (Toth et al., 2001).[24] There are difficulties in doing this
calculation, for example, future climate change damages are uncertain, as are the future costs of adaptation.
Also, deciding what "optimal" is depends on value judgements made by the economist doing the study (Azar, 1998).
[25]
For example, how to value impacts occurring in different regions and different times, and "non-market" impacts,
e.g., damages to ecosystems (Smith et al., 2001).[26] Economics cannot provide definitive answers to these questions
over valuation, and some valuations may be viewed as being controversial (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 87, 99).[27]
Some reviews indicate that policymakers are uncomfortable with using the results of this type of economic analysis
(Klein et al., 2007).[28] This is due to the uncertainties surrounding cost estimates for climate change damages,
adaptation, and mitigation. Another type of analysis is based on a risk-based approach to the problem. Stern (2007)
(referred to by Klein et al., 2007), for example, used such an approach. He argued that adaptation would play an
important role in climate policy, but not in an explicit trade-off against mitigation.
UNFCCC[edit]
In the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which most countries are Parties to
(UNFCCC, n.d.),[29] countries have made commitments to assist those most vulnerable in adapting to climate change
(Banuri et al., 1996, p. 98).[27] TheClean Development Mechanism (CDM), set up as part of the Kyoto Protocol to the
Framework Convention, is the main source of income for the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund. This fund was established in
2007 (World Bank, 2010, pp. 262263).[30] The CDM is subject to a 2% levy, which could raise between $300 million
and $600 million over the 2008-12 period. The actual amount raised will depend on the carbon price.
Although established under the Kyoto Protocol, the Adaptation Fund has been very slow to operationalize and has
not as yet (August 2010) disbursed any funding. The call for Proposals was issued in April 2010[31]
Conceptualising adaptation[edit]
Adaptation can be defined as adjustments of a system to reduce vulnerability and to increase the resilience of system
to change, in this case in the climate system.[34] Adaptation occurs at a range of inter-linking scales, and can either
occur in anticipation of change (anticipatory adaptation), or be a response to those changes (reactive adaptation).
[35]
Most adaptation being implemented at present is responding to current climate trends and variability, for example
increased use of artificial snow-making in the European Alps. Some adaptation measures, however, are anticipating
future climate change, such as the construction of the Confederation Bridge in Canada at a higher elevation to take
into account the effect of future sea-level rise on ship clearance under the bridge.[34]
Adaptive capacity and vulnerability are important concepts for understanding adaptation; vulnerability can be seen as
the context in which adaptation takes place, and adaptive capacity is the ability or potential of a system to respond
successfully to climate variability and change, in order to reduce adverse impacts and take advantage of new
opportunities.[34] Those societies that can respond to change quickly and successfully have a high adaptive capacity.
[36]
High adaptive capacity does not necessarily translate into successful adaptation. For example the adaptive
capacity in Western Europe is high, and the risks of warmer winters increasing the range of livestock diseases was
well documented, but many parts of Europe were still badly affected by outbreaks of the Bluetongue virus in livestock
in 2007.
Adaptive capacity is driven by factors operating at many different interlinked scales, and it is important to understand
the ways in which the different drivers of adaptive capacity interact. Physical constraints are important, but in most
cases it is social processes which increase or decrease adaptive capacity; it can be said that adaptive capacity is
socially constructed.[36] The social drivers of adaptive capacity are varied but may include broad structures such as
economic and political processes, as well as processes which operate at a very local scale, such as access to
decision-making and the structure of social networks and relationships within a community. Adaptive capacity at a
local scale is constrained by larger scale processes. For example a farmers adaptive capacity will not only depend
on access to resources (both physical and social) within the community which allow a crop to be grown successfully,
but also the effect of macro-scale economic processes on the price received for the crop.[35] Gender is another factor
which is important in determining adaptive capacity constrain adaptive capacity and vulnerability,[37] for example
women may have participation in decision-making, or be constrained by lower levels of education.[34]
The social construction of adaptive capacity is very important when thinking about the risks and impacts of a
changing climate. It is not just the change in climate which will affect vulnerability and livelihoods, but the way that
these changes are negotiated through complex social systems. A 10% decrease in rainfall may be acceptable and
manageable to members of a community who have access to improved agricultural techniques, or whose livelihoods
are in some way diversified, whereas marginalised members of the community may not be able to cope with these
changes.[35] Adaptation can be seen as a social and institutional process that involves reflecting on and responding to
current trends and projected changes in climate.[38]
Both temporal and spatial scales are very important in thinking about adaptation, as is the frame of reference taken
for looking at adaptation. Much adaptation takes place in relation to short-term climate variability, however this may
cause maladaptation to longer-term climatic trends. For example, the expansion of irrigation in Egypt into the Western
Sinai desert due to a period of higher river flows is a maladaptation when viewed in relation to the longer term
projections of drying in the region[39]). Adaptations at one scale can also create externalities at another by reducing the
adaptive capacity of other actors. This is often the case when broad assessments of the costs and benefits of
adaptation are examined at smaller scales and it is possible to see that whilst the adaptation may benefit some
actors, it has a negative effect on others.[35]
From the current literature on the subject, people have always adapted to a changing climate and that coping
strategies already exist in many communities, for example changing sowing times or adopting new water-saving
techniques.[39] Traditional knowledge and coping strategies must be maintained and strengthened, otherwise adaptive
capacity may be weakened as local knowledge of the environment is lost. Strengthening these indigenous techniques
and building upon them also makes it more likely that adaptation strategies will be adopted, as it creates more
community ownership and involvement in the process.[34] In some cases however this will be not be enough to adapt
to new conditions which are outside the range of those previously experienced, and new techniques will be needed.[36]
Economic Efficiency: Will the initiative yield benefits substantially greater than if the resources were applied
elsewhere?
Flexibility: Is the strategy reasonable for the entire range of possible changes in temperatures, precipitation,
and sea level?
Urgency: Would the strategy be successful if implementation were delayed ten or twenty years?
Equity: Does the strategy unfairly benefit some at the expense of other regions, generations, or economic
classes?
Institutional feasibility: Is the strategy acceptable to the public? Can it be implemented with existing
institutions under existing laws?
Unique or Critical Resources: Would the strategy decrease the risk of losing unique environmental or
cultural resources?
Health and Safety: Would the proposed strategy increase or decrease the risk of disease or injury?
Consistency: Does the policy support other national state, community, or private goals?
Private v. Public Sector: Does the strategy minimize governmental interference with decisions best made by
the private sector?
Costs[edit]
The United Nations Development Programme estimated that an additional USD $86 billion per year would be needed
in 2015.[41]
According to UNFCCC estimates in 2007, costs of adaptation to climate change would cost $49171 billion per
annum globally by 2030,[citation needed] of which a significant share of the additional investment and financial flows, USD
$2867 billion would be needed in 2030 in non-Annex I Parties.[42] This represents a doubling of current official
development assistance (ODA).
This estimate has been critiqued by Parry et al. (2009), in a joint study by IIED and the Grantham Institute, which
argues that the UNFCCC estimate underestimates the cost of adaptation to climate change by a factor of 2 or 3.
[43]
Moreover, sectors such as tourism, mining, energy, and retail were not included in the UNFCCC estimate.
The more recent World Bank Study on the 'Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change' found that the costs of
adaptation would be in the range of $75100 billion per year between 2010 and 2050; with higher estimates under
the wetter global scenario than the drier scenario, assuming that warming will be about 2 degrees by 2050.[44]
The benefits of strong, early action on mitigation considerably outweigh the costs.[45] The Copenhagen Accord was
agreed on in order to create a commitment by developed countries to provide:[46]
new and additional resources...approaching USD $30 billion for the period 2010- 2012 with balanced allocation
between adaptation and mitigation... [and] in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on
implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD$100 billion a year by 2020 to address
the needs of developing countries.
Copenhagen Accord
However, a key point of contention between states at the UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Summit was who was to foot
the bill and if aid is to be given, how is it to affect other levels of development aid.[46] The concept of additionality has
thus arisen and the EU has asked its member states to come up with definitions of what they understand additionality
to mean, the four main definitions are:[46]
1. Climate finance classified as aid, but additional to (over and above) the 0.7% ODA target;
2. Increase on previous year's Official Development Assistance (ODA) spent on climate change mitigation;
3. Rising ODA levels that include climate change finance but where it is limited to a specified percentage; and
4. Increase in climate finance not connected to ODA.
The main point being that there is a conflict between the OECD states budget deficit cuts, the need to help
developing countries adapt to develop sustainably and the need to ensure that funding does not come from cutting
aid to other important Millennium Development Goals.[46]
Adaptation mechanisms[edit]
Scheraga and Grambsch[47] identify 9 fundamental principles to be considered when designing adaptation policy.
1. The effects of climate change vary by region.
2. The effects of climate change may vary across demographic groups.
3. Climate change poses both risks and opportunities.
4. The effects of climate change must be considered in the context of multiple stressors and factors, which may
be as important to the design of adaptive responses as the sensitivity of the change.
5. Adaptation comes at a cost.
6. Adaptive responses vary in effectiveness, as demonstrated by current efforts to cope with climate variability.
7. The systemic nature of climate impacts complicates the development of adaptation policy.
8. Maladaptation can result in negative effects that are as serious as the climate-induced effects that are being
avoided.
9. Many opportunities for adaptation make sense whether or not the effects of climate change are realized.
Methods of adaptation[edit]
Adaptation through local planning[edit]
Local landuse and municipal planning represent important avenues for adaptation to global warming. These forms of
planning are recognised as central to avoiding the impacts of climate related hazards such as floods and heat stress,
planning for demographic and consumption transition, and plans for ecosystem conservation.[48] This type of planning
is different from the National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) which are intended to be frameworks for
prioritizing adaptation needs.[49] At the local scale, municipalities are at the coal face of adaptation where impacts are
experienced in the forms of inundation, bushfires, heatwaves and rising sea levels.[50]
Cities are planning for adapting to global warming and climate change. The New York Times began a series of
articles on this subject with Chicago's adaptation initiatives being highlighted.[51] Projects include changing to heat
tolerant tree varieties, changing to waterpermeable pavements to absorb higher rainfalls and adding air conditioning
in public schools. New York and other cities are involved in similar planning.[52][53][54] Carefully planned water storage
could help urban areas adapt to increasingly severe storms by increasingrainwater storage (domestic water butts,
unpaved gardens etc.) and increasing the capacity of stormwater systems (and also separating stormwater
from blackwater, so that overflows in peak periods do not contaminate rivers). According to English Nature, gardeners
can help mitigate the effects of climate change by providing habitats for the most threatened species, and/or saving
water by changing gardens to use plants which require less.[55]
Adaptation through local planning occurs in two distinct modes. The first is strategic planning, which is important but
not unique to local governments. At the local scale it fosters community vision, aspirational goals and place-making,
along with defining pathways to achieve these goals. The second form is land-use planning, and is focused on the
allocation of space to balance economic prosperity with acceptable living standards and the conservation of natural
resources. Although these two types of planning are quite different in practice, and in many cases are managed by
different departments, we propose that both are highly important to climate change adaptation, and can contribute to
achieving adaptation at the local scale.[56] Significant constraints are recognised to hinder adaptation through planning,
including limited resources, lack of information, competing planning agendas and complying with requirements from
other levels of government.[57] Examples of adaptation include defending against rising sea levels through better flood
defenses, and changing patterns of land use like avoiding more vulnerable areas for housing.
Planning for rising sea levels is one of the key challenges for local planning in response to climate change. Many
national governments around the world have attempted to address the problem of rising sea levels through policy and
planning reforms designed to increase adaptive capacity.[58] In the United States, many state and local governments
are now assessing innovative, locality-specific options for sea-level rise adaptation.[59][60] Although adaptation planning
occurs through a variety of processes, local adaptation initiatives in the U.S. often pass through three stages of
adaptation planning: 1) building community awareness of sea level rise as a local risk, 2) undertaking a scientific
assessment of these risks in the medium and long-terms, and 3) using a public process to develop an adaptation
plan and supportive policies.[61]
reducing poverty
improving infrastructure
Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute found that development interventions to increase adaptive
capacity have tended not to result in increased agency for local people.[64] They argue that this should play a more
prominent part in future intervention planning because agency is a central factor in all other aspects of adaptive
capacity.
Agricultural production[edit]
A significant effect of global climate change is the altering of global rainfall patterns, with certain effects on agriculture.
[65]
Rainfed agriculture constitutes 80% of global agriculture. Many of the 852 million poor people in the world live in
parts of Asia and Africa that depend on rainfall to cultivate food crops. As the global population swells, more food will
be needed, but climate variability is likely to make successful farming more difficult. Extended drought can cause the
failure of small and marginal farms with resultant economic, political and social disruption. However, such events
have previously occurred in human history independent of global climate change. In recent decades, global trade has
created distribution networks capable of delivering surplus food to where it is needed, thus reducing local impact.[65]
Drought tolerant crop varieties[edit]
Agriculture of any kind is strongly influenced by the availability of water. Climate change will
modify rainfall, evaporation, runoff, and soil moisture storage. Changes in total seasonal precipitation or in its pattern
of variability are both important. The occurrence of moisture stress during flowering, pollination, and grain-filling is
harmful to most crops and particularly so to corn, soybeans, and wheat. Increased evaporation from the soil and
accelerated transpiration in the plants themselves will cause moisture stress. As a result, there will be a need to
develop crop varieties with greater drought tolerance.
More spending on irrigation[edit]
The demand for water for irrigation is projected to rise in a warmer climate, bringing increased competition between
agriculturealready the largest consumer of water resources in semi-arid regionsand urban as well as industrial
users. Falling water tables and the resulting increase in the energy needed to pump water will make the practice of
irrigation more expensive, particularly when with drier conditions more water will be required per acre. Other
strategies will be needed to make the most efficient use of water resources. For example, the International Water
Management Institute has suggested five strategies that could help Asia feed its growing population in light of climate
change. These are:
Supporting farmer's efforts to find their own water supplies, by tapping into groundwater in a sustainable way
Looking beyond conventional 'Participatory Irrigation Management' schemes, by engaging the private sector
Forest resources[edit]
The forestry resources are most crucial means of adaptation to forest dependent people whose lives have been
depending on it. If long duration of drought persist, definitely affect to rain-fed agricultural system. In this situation,
people can collect the edible fruits, roots and leaves for their life survival. Similarly, forest resources provides not only
goods but also services such as regulation of ecosystem, maintain linkage of upstream-downstream through
watershed conservation, carbon sequestration and aesthetic value. These services become crucial part of life
sustained through increased adaptive capacity of poor, vulnerable, women and socially excluded communities.
Rainwater storage[edit]
Providing farmers with access to a range of water stores could help them overcome dry spells that would otherwise
cause their crops to fail. Field studies have shown the effectiveness of small-scale water storage. For example,
according to the International Water Management Institute, using small planting basins to 'harvest' water in Zimbabwe
has been shown to boost maize yields, whether rainfall is abundant or scarce. And in Niger, they have led to three or
fourfold increases in millet yields.[67]
Weather control[edit]
Russian and American scientists have in the past tried to control the weather, for example by seeding clouds with
chemicals to try to produce rain when and where it is needed. A new method being developed involves replicating
the urban heat island effect, where cities are slightly hotter than the countryside because they are darker and absorb
more heat. This creates 28% more rain 2040 miles downwind from cities compared to upwind.[68] On the timescale of
several decades, new weather control techniques may become feasible which would allow control of extreme
weather such as hurricanes.[69]
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) through its Commission for Atmospheric Sciences (CAS) has issued
a "STATEMENT ON WEATHER MODIFICATION" as well as "GUIDELINES FOR THE PLANNING OF WEATHER
MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES" in 2007, stating among others that "Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction
of hail damage, dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud seeding are developing
technologies which are still striving to achieve a sound scientific foundation and which have to be adapted to
enormously varied natural conditions." [70]
Geoengineering[edit]
Main articles: Geoengineering and Solar radiation management
In a literature assessment, Barker et al. (2007) described geoengineering as a type of mitigation policy.[72] IPCC (2007)
concluded that geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, remained
largely unproven.[73] It was judged that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering had not been published.
The Royal Society (2009) published the findings of a study into geoengineering. The authors of the study defined
geoengineering as a "deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, in order to moderate global
warming" (p. ix).[74] According to the study, the safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is
early action to reduce GHG emissions.
Scientists such as Ken Caldeira and Paul Crutzen,[75] suggest geoengineering techniques, which can be employed to
change the climate deliberately and thus control some of the effects of global warming. These include:
Solar radiation management may be seen as an adaptation to global warming.[according to whom?] Techniques such
as space sunshade, creating stratospheric sulfur aerosols and painting roofing and paving materials white all fall
into this category.
Hydrological geoengineering - typically seeking to preserve sea ice or adjust thermohaline circulation by
using methods such as diverting rivers to keep warm water away from sea ice, or tethering icebergs to prevent
them drifting into warmer waters and melting. This may be seen as an adaptation technique,[according to whom?] although
by preventing Arctic methane release it may also have mitigation aspects as well.
Migration[edit]
Recent literature has also put forward the concept of migration as a climate change coping mechanism. Climate
change push factors are weighed against economic or social pull factors: the role of climate change in migration is
thus not a linear one of cause and effect. Migration frequently requires would-be migrants to have access to social
and financial capital, such as support networks in the chosen destination, and the funds to be able to move. It is
frequently the last adaptive response households will take when confronted with environmental factors that threaten
their livelihoods, and mostly resorted to when other mechanisms to cope have proven unsuccessful. Migration and
Climate Change, a UNESCO publication, explores the dynamics of environmental migration and the role of migration
as an adaptive response to climate change.[79]
Insurance[edit]
One method of climate adaptation is the encouragement of individual actions to mitigate, spread, or transfer the risk
of damages. Specifically, one existing tool is insurance, for either general catastrophe or actual flooding. The idea is
to allow for reactive options to rebuild communities after adverse impacts from extreme weather events.[80] Although it
can be preferable to take a proactive approach to eliminate the cause of the risk, reactive post-harm compensation
can be used as a last resort.[81] Access to reinsurance may be a form of increasing the resiliency of cities.[82] Where
there are failures in the private insurance market, the public sector creates residual market mechanisms (RMM) to
encourage individual risk reduction by subsidizing premiums.[83] A study identified key equity issues for policy
considerations:
(a) transferring risk to the public purse does not reduce overall risk (b) governments can spread the cost of losses
across time rather than space (c) governments can force home-owners in low risk areas to cross-subsidize the
insurance premiums of those in high risk areas (d) cross-subsidization is increasingly difficult for private sector
insurers operating in a competitive market, and (e) governments can tax people to pay for tomorrows disaster.[84]
Government-subsidized insurance, such as the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program, is criticized for providing a
perverse incentive to develop properties in hazardous areas, thereby increasing overall risk.[85] This behavioral effect
may be countered with appropriate land-use policies that limit new construction where current or future climate risks
are perceived and/or encourage the adoption of resilient building codes to mitigate potential damages.[86]
Adaptation finance[edit]
The aggregate of current climate change adaptation programs will not raise enough money to fund adaptation to
climate change.[87] There are, however, several programs and proposals to finance adaptation to climate change in
developing countries. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change runs a program called
the Global Environmental Facility, which provides some funding for adaptation to least developed countries and small
island states.[88] Under the GEF umbrella, the GEF Trust Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), and
the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) operate to carry out the climate change adaptation financing goals of the
GEF.[88] Another mechanism has been implemented through the Adaptation Fund, as a result of negotiations
duringCOP15 and COP16, which provides funds for projects that prove to have additional benefits for adaptation to
climate change. There are several other climate change adaptation finance proposals, most of which employ official
development assistance or ODA.[7] These proposals range from a World Bank program, to proposals involving
auctioning of carbon allowances, to a global carbon or transportation tax, to compensation-based funding.[7] Other
proposals suggest using market-based mechanisms, rather than ODA, such as the Higher Ground Foundation's
vulnerability reduction credit (VRC)[89] or a program similar to the Clean Development Mechanism,[90] to raise private
money for climate change adaptation. The Copenhagen Accord, the most recent global climate change agreement,
commits developed countries to goal of sending $100 billion per year to developing countries in assistance for climate
change mitigation and climate change adaptation through 2020.[91] This agreement, while not binding, would dwarf
current amounts dedicated to adaptation in developing countries. This climate change fund is called the Green
Climate Fund from the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference.[92]
See also[edit]
Global warming portal
Renewable Energy portal
Sustainable development portal
Climate bond
Gary Tabor, catalyst of large landscape conservation and wildlife corridors as an adaptive solution to global
warming
Climate resilience