« Health »

Among environmentalists in the developed world, there are, sadly, a subset who obsess on the notion of taking down the world's population into the realm of 1 to 2 Billion max. Some among this group would not shed a tear about having billions die off in various hardscrabble places.

To wit:

http://dieoff.org

To really get the full impact of this movement, click on the many links and references at this sorry site. There are others out there like it, which have seen more recent maintenance. In inspirational figure for some subcultures who are into this way of thinking was Margaret Sanger.

For those interested in exploring the links between adaptation and sustainable development, I would recommend the following preprint, “Integrated Strategies to Reduce Vulnerability and Advance Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development,” which can be accessed at http://members.cox.net/igoklany/Goklany-Integrating_A&M_preprint.pdf .

It argues among other things that since insufficient economic and technological development is the reason why developing countries are most at risk from climate change, such development would reduce their vulnerability to climate change and , more importantly, many other poverty-driven problems that beset them. [In effect, insufficient development is the disease and the inability to cope with climate change is just a symptom of a much larger problem, namely, the poor ability to cope with virtually any form of adversity – so why not treat the disease?]

The paper shows, among other things, that reducing vulnerability to climate-sensitive problems, e.g., malaria, would advance sustainable development (as well as adaptive and mitigative capacity)

Here is the paper’s abstract:

“Determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacities (e.g., availability of technological options, and access to economic resources, social capital and human capital) largely overlap. Several factors underlying or related to these determinants are themselves indicators of sustainable development (e.g., per capita income; and various public health, education and research indices). Moreover, climate change could exacerbate existing climate-sensitive hurdles to sustainable development (e.g., hunger, malaria, water shortage, coastal flooding and threats to biodiversity) faced specifically by many developing countries. Based on these commonalities, the paper identifies integrated approaches to formulating strategies and measures to concurrently advance adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development. These approaches range from broadly moving sustainable development forward (by developing and/or nurturing institutions, policies and infrastructure to stimulate economic development, technological change, human and social capital, and reducing specific barriers to sustainable development) to reducing vulnerabilities to urgent climate-sensitive risks that hinder sustainable development and would worsen with climate change. The resulting sustainable economic development would also help reduce birth rates, which could mitigate climate change and reduce the population exposed to climate change and climate-sensitive risks, thereby reducing impacts, and the demand for adaptation. The paper also offers a portfolio of pro-active strategies and measures consistent with the above approaches, including example measures that would simultaneously reduce pressures on biodiversity, hunger, and carbon sinks. Finally it addresses some common misconceptions that could hamper fuller integration of adaptation and mitigation, including the notions that adaptation may be unsuitable for natural systems, and mitigation should necessarily have primacy over adaptation.”

In another paper, I have attempted a crude comparison of the costs and benefits of different types of efforts to advance adaptation and sustainable development that would reduce climate-related damages. See: “A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?”, available here: http://members.cox.net/igoklany/EEv16_Stab_or_Adaptation.pdf

This paper’s time horizon extends to about 2085-2100 even though that is, in my opinion, beyond what can be reasonably foreseen at this time. [The Stern Review fearlessly treads way beyond that.]

In any case, it shows that adaptation, broadly defined to include measures and policies that would reduce vulnerability to climate-sensitive problems, would over the next several decades be more effective and efficient than mitigation. Accordingly, the near-to-medium term focus should be on adaptation/sustainable development. However, this doesn’t mean that mitigation should be neglected. In the near-to-medium term, one would recommend implementing “no-regret” emission reduction measures while at the same time striving to expand the universe of such measures through research and development of cleaner and more affordable technologies. Finally, both adaptation and mitigation should be complemented by continuing (a) research on climate change science, economics and responses to better evaluate and determine trade-offs and synergies between adaptation and mitigation, and (b) monitoring trends to provide advance warning and to allow more aggressive responses should the adverse impacts of warming occur faster, or threaten to be more severe or more likely than currently projected.

Indur, I applaud your continued push on sustainable development, which surely is a much more difficult task than trying to price carbon emissions globally. Can we expect that you'll have more in Ken Green and Steve Hayward's much discussed next book for AEI?

To be honest, I see little appetite from the right for a significant, commited effort to aid adaptation and governance in the developing world, even though taxes on carbon could be readily applied to fund the adaptation effort. Expensive wars are so much easier to justify.

Tom-

I agree that there is little seriousness on the right for an adaptation agenda. And there is also little appetite on the left. Consider this dismissal by Dave Roberts at Grist:

"In today's political reality, focusing on adaptation is in keeping with the essential conservative message: we've got ours, screw everybody else."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/16/104655/313#comment25

I replied to this at Grist, partially tongue-in-cheek as follows:

"So lets see if I have this straight:

Those of us calling for rich countries to invest more money in adaptation are in fact contributing to the political agenda of those who say "screw everybody else"? Right, that makes sense. It seems to me that Dave Roberts and his conservative straightmen are the ones who agree that we should not be investing in adaptation.

So are you implying that those people in developing countries who are calling for more attention to adaptation (you know, because their children are dying and stuff like that) are in fact supporting US conservatives? How narrow minded of them! Don't they even think about our domestic political squabbles before speaking out?"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/16/104655/313#comment32

Adaptation is the loser in the politicized debate over climate change because it has no apparent rich-world constituency, unlike energy policy which is readily absorbed into left-right political frames.

Thanks.

Roger, you say "Adaptation is the loser in the politicized debate over climate change because it has no apparent rich-world constituency."

Yes, but why does adaptation have no rich-world cocntituency? Primarily because the right have been denying that climate change is a problem at all, so much of the public does not yet understand the size of the adaptation problem. Greater education is still needed about the size of the problem that is upon us and cannot be avoided.

Further, the right have no appetite for any solutions involving the difficult tasks of international cooperation, either mitigation or the even messier adaptation that will require helping poorer countries to solve their problems with poor governance/corruption.

I do not think that the left is uninterested in adaptation, but I think they correctly perceive that the sudden switch in attention to this by the right is too facile and will leave the achievable aspects of mitigation ignored.

Other factors include the fact that adaptation at home will occur without government policy (although the right policies will certainly be helpful), and many on the left may fail to understand how difficult the adaptation agenda in developing countries is.