Francais | English | Espanõl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adaptation to global warming covers all actions aimed at reducing the negative effects of global warming. This in contrast to Mitigation of global warming which involves actions meant to avoid or delay the occurrence of climate change due to global warming.

Contents 1 Effects of global warming 2 The argument for adaptation 2.1 National Academy of Sciences 2.2 IPCC Working Group II 2.2.1 Adaptation is a necessary strategy 2.2.2 Poorer nations 2.2.3 Mutual reinforcement 2.3 National Center for Policy Analysis 2.4 The Kyoto Protocol 2.5 Historic adaptation 3 Adaptation versus Mitigation 4 Criteria for assessing responses 5 Adaptation mechanisms 6 Methods of adaptation 6.1 Adapting to changes in weather 6.1.1 Water management 6.1.1.1 Agricultural production 6.1.1.2 Urban areas 6.1.2 Temperature 6.1.2.1 Air conditioning 6.1.3 Weather control 6.2 Ocean change 6.2.1 Rising sea levels 6.3 Changes in ecosystems 6.4 The retreat of glaciers 6.4.1 Damming glacial lakes 6.5 Underdeveloped nations 7 Sources 7.1 Relevant IPCC reports 7.2 Relevant OTA reports 7.3 Other relevant sources

[edit] Effects of global warming

Main article: Effects of global warming

Projected climate changes due to global warming have the potential to lead to future large-scale and possibly irreversible changes in climate resulting in impacts at continental and global scales.

Examples of projected climate changes include:

• significant slowing of the ocean circulation that transports warm water to the North Atlantic,
• large reductions in the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets,
• accelerated global warming due to carbon cycle feedbacks in the terrestrial biosphere, and
• releases of terrestrial carbon from permafrost regions and methane from hydrates in coastal sediments.

The likelihood of many of these changes is not well-known, but is probably very low. However, the probability of one or more of these changes occurring is likely to increase with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change.

Most of the consequences of global warming would result from one of three physical changes: sea level rise, higher local temperatures, and changes in rainfall patterns. Sea level is generally expected to rise 50-200 cm in the next century (Dean et al. 1987); such a rise would inundate 7,000 square miles of dry land in the United States (an area the size of Massachusetts) and a similar amount of coastal wetlands; erode recreational beaches 100-200 meters, exacerbate coastal flooding; and increase the salinity of aquifers and estuaries (Titus 1989).

[edit] The argument for adaptation

The argument for adaptation is that even if we stop all emissions today, the greenhouse gases which are already in the air would be enough to cause some climate change. CO₂ in particular is long-lived atmospheric gas, and it would take a long time for CO₂ levels to stabilize to pre-industrial levels. Total CO₂ emissions are likely to rise in the coming decades. Climate change is already happening: glaciers are melting, sea levels have risen, and hurricanes are getting more intense. With rising CO₂ levels, climate change is likely to get worse before it gets better. For these reasons, the world must prepare and adapt to the effects of global warming.

[edit] National Academy of Sciences

One prominent attempt to broach adaptation was a 1991 report by the National Academy of Sciences, “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming.” The National Academy report cautioned that agricultural adaptation will be essential in a greenhouse world.

[edit] 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

[1]

[edit] Adaptation is a necessary strategy

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.

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.

Human and natural systems will to some degree adapt autonomously to climate change. 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. [2]

[edit] Poorer nations

The ability of human systems to adapt to and cope with climate change depends on such factors as wealth, technology, education, information, skills, infrastructure, access to resources, and management capabilities. There is potential for developed and developing countries to enhance and/or acquire adaptive capabilities. Populations and communities are highly variable in their endowments with these attributes, and the developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, are generally poorest 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 poorest people. [3]

[edit] 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 can promote equity and development that is more sustainable and that reduces vulnerability to climate change. [4]

[edit] National Center for Policy Analysis

A study by the 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

[5]

[edit] 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 the same period, Chinese emissions are expected to rise almost 2 billion tons annually. Today the world net output of artificial carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is about 6 billion tons annually.

Even with the Kyoto Protocol, global emissions by 2015 will rise to perhaps 9 billion tons, 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. [6]

[edit] Historic adaptation

Some of those who argue for adaptation to global warming do so with the perspective that human civilization has proven to be highly adaptable to climate change in the past and therefore will likely be able to adapt to climate change in the future.

The counterargument to this perspective is that the costs of adaptation are much higher than in the past due to the greater investment in urban and industrial infrastructure.

In the past, cities could be relocated largely by having the populace pack up their possessions on their backs, on pack animals or wagons and relocate. Modern cities the size of Bristol or Liverpool cannot be relocated easily even with the use of truck, air and rail transport.

The damage suffered by New Orleans by hurricane Katrina provides some perspective as to the potential damage that can be caused by a rise in sea level. Far more technology and resources are available today. Our organizational and communication systems are far more advanced than than were available in the time of the Romans. At the same time, there is far more infrastructure to protect or relocate. The relative costs of relocation could be higher.

[edit] Adaptation versus Mitigation

Some orthodox environmentalists consider mere mention of adaptation to be offensive because they believe that mitigation should be the critical focus and that adaptation is a "red herring" that distracts from the focus on mitigation. Others resist discussion of adaptation because they believe that the concept has been so abused by those who seek to avoid making any changes to the so called "fossil fuel society" that to speak of adaptation at all runs the risk of having their words dismissed by allies and distorted by opponents. There's also the deeper philosophical issue that a focus on adaptation can easily undercut more productive -- but more difficult -- efforts to halt and reverse disastrous changes. [7]

On the other hand, those who argue for adaptation over mitigation assert that the requirement of holding global greenhouse gas emissions constant is unrealistic, especially when one takes account of the growth rate of developing countries such as India and China. At their stage of economic development, increasing standards of living and economic activities directly translate into near proportionate increase in greenhouse gass emission. This is not the case with developed countries where emissions level tend to be constant. Those who advocate adaptation over mitigation are not hostile to energy saving technologies or even energy taxes, which are economically efficient. However, they are generally hostile to the idea of capping greenhouse emissions. They argue that, for such a policy to have any meaningful effect, the caps have to be applied to emerging developing countries. Because of their stage of economic development, caps on energy consumption mean caps on their living standard and economic growth, which would reduce the benefits caused by growth in living standards such as reduced infant mortality, increased life expectancy, and better medical care. Moreover, half hearted measures of mitigation and the resulting stunting of economic growth would impact these developing countries' ability to adapt to the effect of global warming. Hence, they argue that any meaningful mitigation policy is politically, economically and morally impractical. Academic support for this argument usually comes from the field of economics. In general, the advocates of this position accept that human activities are the likely cause of global warming and support such policies as energy taxes, while at the same time, oppose emission caps often supported by the green movement. (See Copenhagen Consensus as an example)

[edit] Criteria for assessing responses

James Titus identifies the following criteria that policy makers should use in assessing responses to global warming:

• 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, precipita- tion, and sea level?
• Urgency: Would the strategy be successful if implementation were delayed ten or twenty years?
• Low Cost: Does the strategy require minimal resources?
• 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?

[8]

[edit] Adaptation mechanisms

Scheraga and Grambsch [9] 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 imporant 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.

[edit] Methods of adaptation

Examples of adaptation include defending against rising sea levels through better flood defences, and changing patterns of land use (avoiding more vulnerable areas for housing).

[edit] Adapting to changes in weather

[edit] Water management

[edit] Agricultural production

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.

The demand for water for irrigation is projected to rise in a warmer climate, bringing increased competition between agriculture--already the largest consumer of water resources in semiarid regions--and 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.

[edit] Urban areas

One strategy involves adapting urban areas to increasingly severe storms by increasing rainwater 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. [10]

[edit] Temperature

[edit] Air conditioning

Increased use of air conditioning will develop as hot summers - like the 2003 heatwave which killed 35,000 people in Europe - become more common.

[edit] Weather control

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 20-40 miles downwind from cities compared to upwind.[11] On the timescale of several decades, new weather control techniques may become feasible which would allow control of extreme weather such as hurricanes.[12]

[edit] Ocean change

[edit] Rising sea levels

For most practical purposes, the rise in sea level would be uniform--both geographically and seasonally--because sea level is a global process (although the impacts would vary greatly).

[edit] Changes in ecosystems

sgsgfsrffgffd

[edit] The retreat of glaciers

[edit] Damming glacial lakes

Glacial Lake Outburst Floods may become a bigger concern due to the retreat of glaciers, leaving behind numerous lakes that are impounded by oftentimes weak terminal moraine dams. In the past, the sudden failure of these dams has resulted in localized property damage, injury and deaths. Glacial lakes in danger of bursting can have their moraines replaced with concrete dams (which may also provide hydroelectric power). [13].

Climate change over the next century may have significant effects on food supply, i.e., how much food is produced, as well as food security, i.e. how much food is available to people. How much, where, and when food supply and security will be affected by climate change are questions many scientists and policy-makers are examining.

There are also a variety of measures that can be taken to ensure food security in the face of less reliable agricultural yields, particularly in the tropics, where drought is expected to become more common.

As global warming causes climate change, the issue of effects of global warming on agriculture due to the change in weather conditions is often invoked in arguments on the course of action involving prediction of climate events. These conditions, including temperature, radiation and water, determine the carrying capacity of the biosphere to produce enough food for the human population and domesticated animals. Any short-term fluctuations of the climate can have dramatic effects on the agricultural productivity. Thus, the climate has a direct incidence on food supply. Also, the often thought anthropogenic cause of global warming, an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide levels, would also have effects, both detrimental and beneficial, on crop yields.

It is hoped that a positive effect of global warming would be increased agricultural yields, because of the role of carbon dioxide in photosynthesis.

Assessment of the effects of global climate changes on agriculture might help to properly anticipate and adapt farming to maximize agricultural production.

[edit] Underdeveloped nations

Developing countries are most vulnerable to warming because they lack adaptive capacity. That capacity can be increased by enhancing economic development, human capital and the propensity for technological innovation, which are precisely the goals of sustainable development. Moreover, enhancing adaptive capacity would also increase their ability to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2000, there was a proposal made at the Sixth Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that called for the creation of an Adaptation Fund of $1 billion per year for developing countries, especially the least developed and small island states, to enable them to combat the consequences of climate change.

[edit] Sources

[edit] Relevant IPCC reports

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced two separate reports: "Mitigation" [14] and "Adaptation and Vulnerability"[15].

[edit] Relevant OTA reports

The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) published two reports containing detailed assessments of mitigation and adaptation strategies. "Changing by Degrees" investigates options for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide, the most troublesome anthropogenic greenhouse gas (OTA 1991). "Preparing for an Uncertain Climate" examines how managed natural resource systems--such as water, agriculture, and forests--might adapt to changing environmental conditions brought about by global warming (OTA 1993).

• "Changing by Degrees" U.S. Office of Technology Assessment 1991

• "Preparing for an Uncertain Climate" U.S. Office of Technology Assessment 1993

[edit] Other relevant sources

In addition to government and United Nations reports, an extensive research literature assesses options for response to global warming. Much of this literature addresses the potential economic costs associated with different strategies.

"Economic Approaches to Greenhouse Warming" provides a summary of Yale economist William Nordhaus' ideas (1991). Nordhaus, who has written widely on the global warming issue, questions the motivation for countries to pursue relatively costly measures for responding to global warming given current scientific uncertainty about the problem's magnitude and estimates that potential economic impacts may not be that high, particularly for developed economies.

Economist William Cline offers an opposing view, arguing that potential economic costs of unabated global warming could be very high. In the monograph, "Global Warming: The Economic Stakes", Cline (1992) assesses the potential cost of damages from global warming and the cost of efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions.

• "Global Warming: The Economic Stakes", Cline (1992)

• "Economic Approaches to Greenhouse Warming" William Nordhaus (1991)

• "Coping with Global Climate Change: The Role of Adaptation in the United States" Pew Center on Global Climate Change, June 2004. [16]

• "Living with Global Warming" National Center for Policy Analysis [17]

• "Adaptation to Global Warming" James Titus [18]

• "Adapt or Die: The Science, Politics and Economics of Climate Change" Profile Books, December 2003 ISBN 1-86197-795-6

• "Economics of Carbon Sequestration" USDA Economic Research Service [19]

• "Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Issues of Longrun Sustainability" USDA Economic Research Service [20]

• "World Agriculture and Climate Change: Economic Adaptations" USDA Economic Research Service [21]

• "Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming." National Academy of Sciences, 1991.

• "Water Allocation in a Changing Climate: Institutions and Adaptation" Springer Netherlands, ISSN 0165-0009 (Paper) 1573-1480 (Online) Volume 35, Number 2, February 1997. pp. 157 - 177.

• "Risks, opportunities, and adaptation to climate change" Joel D. Scheraga, Anne E. Grambsch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [22]

• McMichael et al. (2003). Climate Change and Human Health – Risk and Responses. WHO, UNEP, WMO, Geneva. ISBN 92-4-159081-5.

• Müller, B. (2002) Equity in Climate Change. The Great Divide. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Oxford, UK (Executive Summary)

• House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, 2nd Report of Session 2005-06, The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report [23]

Global Warming

Subtopics

Scientific opinion | Attribution of causes | Effects | Mitigation | Adaptation | Controversy | Politics | Economics

Related topics

Greenhouse effect | Greenhouse gases | Temperature data | Kyoto Protocol | Long-term climate change | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change