Adaptation to global warming

Adaptation to global warming consists of initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects.[1] This is in distinction to the mitigation of global warming.

According to the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government David King, it is very likely that adaptation to global warming is inevitable as "it is unlikely that levels of greenhouse gases can be kept low enough to avoid a projected temperature rise of 2 °C [2].

Effects of global warming

The projected effects for the environment and for human life are numerous and varied. The main effect is an increasing global average temperature. This causes a variety of secondary effects, namely, changes in patterns of precipitation, rising sea levels, altered patterns of agriculture, increased extreme weather events, the expansion of the range of tropical diseases, the opening of new trade routes.

Potential effects include sea level rise of 110 to 770 mm (0.36 to 2.5 feet) between 1990 and 2100, repercussions to agriculture, possible slowing of the thermohaline circulation, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, lowering of ocean pH, and the spread of tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.

A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report made for the IPCC Third Assessment Report by Working Group II.[3] The 2007 contribution of Working Group II detailing the impacts of global warming for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has been summarized for policymakers.[4]

Necessity for adaptation

In the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature, a team of science policy experts argue that adapting to climate change would be a more effective means of dealing with global warming than reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.[5]

National Academy of Sciences

One prominent attempt to address adaptation was a 1991 report by the American National Academy of Sciences, "Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming." The National Academy report cautioned that agricultural adaptation will be essential in a greenhouse world.[6] IPCC Working Group II

IPCC Working Group II argues that mitigation and adaptation should be complementary components of a response strategy to global warming. Their report makes the following observations:

  1. Adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation efforts.
  2. Those with the least resources have the least capacity to adapt and are the most vulnerable
  3. Adaptation, sustainable development, and enhancement of equity can be mutually reinforcing.[7]

Adaptation is a necessary strategy

Because of the current and projected climate disruption precipitated by high levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the industrialized nations, adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation efforts because we cannot be sure that all climate change can be mitigated. And indeed the odds are quite high that in the long run more warming is inevitable, given the geologic evidence of the past's most similar glacial / interglacial cycle which happened about 400,000 years ago. That similarity being determined by degree of the elliptic shape of the Earth's orbit and how close the Sun is when the most land, that is the northern hemisphere, is being warmed by it.

Adaptation has the potential to reduce adverse impacts of climate change and to enhance beneficial impacts, but will incur costs and will not prevent all damages. Extremes, variability, and rates of change are all key features in addressing vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, not simply changes in average climate conditions.[citation needed]

Human and natural systems will to some degree adapt autonomously to climate change.[citation needed] Planned adaptation can supplement autonomous adaptation, though there are more options and greater possibility for offering incentives in the case of adaptation of human systems than in the case of adaptation to protect natural systems.[8]

Disadvantaged nations

The ability of human systems to adapt to and cope with climate change generally depends on such factors as wealth, technology, education, information, skills, infrastructure, access to resources, management capabilities, and sociopolitical will.

There is potential for more advantaged and less advantaged countries to enhance and/or acquire adaptive capabilities. Populations and communities are highly variable in their endowments with these attributes, and disadvantaged countries are weakest in this regard. As a result, they have lesser capacity to adapt and are more vulnerable to climate change damages, just as they are more vulnerable to other stresses. This condition is most extreme among the most disadvantaged people.[9] Mutual reinforcement

Many communities and regions that are vulnerable to climate change are also under pressure from forces such as population growth, resource depletion, and poverty. Policies that lessen pressures on resources, improve management of environmental risks, and increase the welfare of the poorest members of society can simultaneously advance sustainable development and equity, enhance adaptive capacity, and reduce vulnerability to climate and other stresses. Inclusion of climatic risks in the design and implementation of national and international development initiatives such as polar cities can promote equity and development that is more sustainable and that reduces vulnerability to climate change.[10] National Center for Policy Analysis

A study by the American National Center for Policy Analysis argues that adaptation is more cost-effective than mitigation. Their report makes the following observations:

  1. By 2085, the contribution of (unmitigated) warming to the above listed problems is generally smaller than other factors unrelated to climate change.
  2. More important, these risks would be lowered much more effectively and economically by reducing current and future vulnerability to climate change rather than through its mitigation.
  3. Finally, adaptation would help developing countries cope with major problems now, and through 2085 and beyond, whereas generations would pass before anything less than draconian mitigation would have a discernible effect.[11]

The Kyoto Protocol

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the United States would have agreed to cut greenhouse emissions by about 400 million tons per year by 2012. In 2003 the world net output of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, was about 25 billion metric tons annually.[12]

Even with the Kyoto Protocol, global emissions by 2015 will rise to perhaps 9 billion tons[citation needed], 50 percent higher than today's level. Such nearly-inevitable carbon buildup ought to tell us is that if greenhouse theory is right, a warming world is now unavoidable: at least through the next generation, until a renewable-fuels energy economy can be created.[13]

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

In February 2009, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (UK) issued a report in which they expressed pessimism about the ability of any international agreement, such as Kyoto Treaty to reduce carbon emissions. While it did not dismiss mitigation policy all together, it stated that they are "realistic enough to recognise that global CO2 emissions are not reducing and our climate is changing so unless we adapt, we are likely to face a difficult future." [14][15]