Adaptation to climate change
Saturday, 12 March 2011
Gousal Azam
During the last 20 years, a long series of discussions were held to mitigate global warming. Because of the tremendous importance of the issue, publicity built up before the Copenhagen Conference in 2009 was so powerful that the general public all over the world expected that the outcome of the conference would produce something for the reduction of the global warming. But ultimately the conference could not produce anything of the expectation. Now the widespread belief is that because of the extra-ordinary publicity campaign, the Copenhagen Conference failed. After a brief respite, the world started to think that the next conference on the subject to be held in Mexico and Cancun would deliver something. Even if Cancun Conference produces something, the world is going to get warmer. So the experts are on the opinion that the world must accept the strategy of adapting to the changes of the environment. Since the beginning of the creation, creatures, no doubt, have adapted to change in their environment for survival. Such adaptation definitely caused a large number of deaths and even extinction of some of the species from the earth. Evolution actually works that way. But humankind is the luckiest of all the species in the sense that it has the advantages of being able to think ahead and prepare for the changes to come. It is more so when it is discerned that the tools invented by the humankind have no limitation. If the result of the Cancun Conference is able to reduce moderate pace of emission, the earth will be at least 3 degree Celsius warmer at the end of the century. During the 20th century, the earth got warmed by about 0.7 degree Celsius. In this century every year has been warmer than all but one in the last (1998). If emissions of carbon dioxide were magically to stabilise where they are now (almost 390 parts per million but 40 per cent more than before the industrial revolution), the world would probably warm by a further half degree or so. But CO2 levels continue to rise. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world would warm by 3.5 degree Celsius by 2100. The difference in global mean temperature between the pre-industrial ages and ice ages was about 6 degree Celsius. It is now being presumed that the way the world leaders are discussing reduction of warming to a tolerable level may not be possible. The analysts have observed that the mankind has found ways to live with scarcer water, higher pick temperatures, higher sea levels and weather patterns at odds with those under which today's settled patterns of farming developed are starting to see their day in the uncomfortable hot sun. Such measures cannot protect everyone from all harms that climate change may bring. From the pragmatic point of view, they are sorely needed. Adaptations are like moving houses, improvement in the water supplies, sowing different seeds etc. These the people will do for themselves if they get the opportunity. This is the cogent reason why adaptation has not become the subject of public debate in the way as reductions in greenhouse gas emission from industry and deforestation. A lot of adaptation will end up being done privately. It is also a fit case of public policy. Some forms of adaptation, say, flood barriers, are clearly public goods, best applied through collective action. The most important thing about adaptation is that it requires redistribution. Some people and communities are poor to adapt on their own, whereas emission caused by the consumption of the rich imposes adaptation cost on the poor. From ethical and justice point of view, they should be compensated. The means of adaptation in some cases may also act as mitigation. The farming technique which helps soil store moisture better will also help it to store carbon too. Mass migration is a good way of adapting. Thus migration within and outside the country may be considered from humanitarian consideration. The warmer world at the end of the 21st century by 3 degree Celsius would cause the Arctic summer go, allowing more shipping and mining. Permafrosts warm up and melt and infrastructure built on them founders. Mountain glaciers shrink, some disappear. Snows of the winter will melt more quickly. Spring floods will prevail and water shortages on the rivers will occur. Sea level rises. Some of the rises may be predictable. Some will depend on the behaviour of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps. Experts comment that more than half a metre by 2100 would be a lucky one, a metre plus is possible, more than two is very un1ikely, but possible later. Water rise will cause sinking of many coasts because of the subsidence that follows as cities suck up ground water. Deltas are damned doubly, as any subsidence is often coupled with a lessened supply of replenishing sediment which is often trapped upstream by irrigation, hydro production and flood control projects. An estimate puts 8.7 million more people at risk of flooding in deltas by 2050 if sea level follows current level of rising. Tropical cyclones liable for much of the damage the sea does to the land may become less frequent. But the share of the most destruction of category 4 and category 5 hurricanes seems likely to increase. Bigger storms do disproportionately notorious damages. On land much of South East Asia is likely to get wetter. Some land in the northern climes will become more suitable for farming as springs come sooner whereas some marginal land will become barely inhabitable in the tropics and subtropics. In other words, due to the change in the weather, changes in the world on earth will be so much that even adaptation can help up to a point. A 2009 review of the cost of warming to the global economy suggests that as much as two thirds of the total cannot be offset through investment in adaptation, and will be felt through higher prices and lower growth. But adaptation can still achieve a lot. It will not be out of place to mention that the changes in the environment will benefit some. The most important beneficiary will be Russia. Melting ice will allow access to the Arctic. Russia will be rich in fossil fuels. (The writer is former secretary general of IBB and a columnist.)
During the last 20 years, a long series of discussions were held to mitigate global warming. Because of the tremendous importance of the issue, publicity built up before the Copenhagen Conference in 2009 was so powerful that the general public all over the world expected that the outcome of the conference would produce something for the reduction of the global warming. But ultimately the conference could not produce anything of the expectation. Now the widespread belief is that because of the extra-ordinary publicity campaign, the Copenhagen Conference failed. After a brief respite, the world started to think that the next conference on the subject to be held in Mexico and Cancun would deliver something. Even if Cancun Conference produces something, the world is going to get warmer. So the experts are on the opinion that the world must accept the strategy of adapting to the changes of the environment. Since the beginning of the creation, creatures, no doubt, have adapted to change in their environment for survival. Such adaptation definitely caused a large number of deaths and even extinction of some of the species from the earth. Evolution actually works that way. But humankind is the luckiest of all the species in the sense that it has the advantages of being able to think ahead and prepare for the changes to come. It is more so when it is discerned that the tools invented by the humankind have no limitation. If the result of the Cancun Conference is able to reduce moderate pace of emission, the earth will be at least 3 degree Celsius warmer at the end of the century. During the 20th century, the earth got warmed by about 0.7 degree Celsius. In this century every year has been warmer than all but one in the last (1998). If emissions of carbon dioxide were magically to stabilise where they are now (almost 390 parts per million but 40 per cent more than before the industrial revolution), the world would probably warm by a further half degree or so. But CO2 levels continue to rise. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world would warm by 3.5 degree Celsius by 2100. The difference in global mean temperature between the pre-industrial ages and ice ages was about 6 degree Celsius. It is now being presumed that the way the world leaders are discussing reduction of warming to a tolerable level may not be possible. The analysts have observed that the mankind has found ways to live with scarcer water, higher pick temperatures, higher sea levels and weather patterns at odds with those under which today's settled patterns of farming developed are starting to see their day in the uncomfortable hot sun. Such measures cannot protect everyone from all harms that climate change may bring. From the pragmatic point of view, they are sorely needed. Adaptations are like moving houses, improvement in the water supplies, sowing different seeds etc. These the people will do for themselves if they get the opportunity. This is the cogent reason why adaptation has not become the subject of public debate in the way as reductions in greenhouse gas emission from industry and deforestation. A lot of adaptation will end up being done privately. It is also a fit case of public policy. Some forms of adaptation, say, flood barriers, are clearly public goods, best applied through collective action. The most important thing about adaptation is that it requires redistribution. Some people and communities are poor to adapt on their own, whereas emission caused by the consumption of the rich imposes adaptation cost on the poor. From ethical and justice point of view, they should be compensated. The means of adaptation in some cases may also act as mitigation. The farming technique which helps soil store moisture better will also help it to store carbon too. Mass migration is a good way of adapting. Thus migration within and outside the country may be considered from humanitarian consideration. The warmer world at the end of the 21st century by 3 degree Celsius would cause the Arctic summer go, allowing more shipping and mining. Permafrosts warm up and melt and infrastructure built on them founders. Mountain glaciers shrink, some disappear. Snows of the winter will melt more quickly. Spring floods will prevail and water shortages on the rivers will occur. Sea level rises. Some of the rises may be predictable. Some will depend on the behaviour of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps. Experts comment that more than half a metre by 2100 would be a lucky one, a metre plus is possible, more than two is very un1ikely, but possible later. Water rise will cause sinking of many coasts because of the subsidence that follows as cities suck up ground water. Deltas are damned doubly, as any subsidence is often coupled with a lessened supply of replenishing sediment which is often trapped upstream by irrigation, hydro production and flood control projects. An estimate puts 8.7 million more people at risk of flooding in deltas by 2050 if sea level follows current level of rising. Tropical cyclones liable for much of the damage the sea does to the land may become less frequent. But the share of the most destruction of category 4 and category 5 hurricanes seems likely to increase. Bigger storms do disproportionately notorious damages. On land much of South East Asia is likely to get wetter. Some land in the northern climes will become more suitable for farming as springs come sooner whereas some marginal land will become barely inhabitable in the tropics and subtropics. In other words, due to the change in the weather, changes in the world on earth will be so much that even adaptation can help up to a point. A 2009 review of the cost of warming to the global economy suggests that as much as two thirds of the total cannot be offset through investment in adaptation, and will be felt through higher prices and lower growth. But adaptation can still achieve a lot. It will not be out of place to mention that the changes in the environment will benefit some. The most important beneficiary will be Russia. Melting ice will allow access to the Arctic. Russia will be rich in fossil fuels. (The writer is former secretary general of IBB and a columnist.)