Mitigation vs Adaptation – The Reason Why Developing Countries Hold Out At Climate Talks
March 21, 2008
So recent floods in the US cannot be attributed to climate change… yet. When experts and the media finally decide extreme weather events and climate change are linked, get ready for the mitigation vs adaptation debate. The basic argument from the adaptation camp will go something like this: why bother spending money on green tech when climate change is already happening – we need that money to adapt. Mitigationists could counter with ‘but we can afford both’.
Maybe. But what about developing countries?
They are faced with the sharp end of this dilemma. If they forgo cheap fossil fuel burning to develop their economies and suffer climate disaster then adaptation becomes very expensive. If current warming is due to developed countries historical emissions then things get even more complicated.
The prisoners dilemma for developing countries beckons a dominant strategy. Continue polluting anyway, then at least they can help pay for adaptation. This is part of the reason why developing countries aren’t rushing for a global CO2 emission cap and why Al Gore was in India recently.
A solution? Western countries whose economies have developed due to CO2 emissions need to foot the bill for all countries who go straight to renewable energy. Not an easy sell at home. Suddenly politics and international relations become crucial. Leaders, forced to strike a balance between mitigation and adaption at home and abroad might miss all objectives. The political system in the United States suddenly becomes critical in dealing with climate change. If we elect a strong leader, he or she could find the policy mix to get us through… If our system is broken… well, there is a lot at stake.
