December 2019, ScientificAmerican.com 9SCIENCE AGENDA
OPINION AND ANALYSIS FROM
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S BOARD OF EDITORSIllustration by Francesco ZorziAdapt or
Mitigate? Both
To cope with climate change, we need
every strategy we’ve got
By the EditorsNot that long ago “adaptation” was considered a dirty word
among climate activists. Their view was that if we could retool
our lives to accommodate the consequences of climate change—
rising seas, longer wildfire seasons, and a long list of other not so
natural disasters—industries and governments would use that
as an excuse to avoid a more important job: curbing our emis-
sions of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that cause these
problems in the first place.
That position might have been reasonable in 1988, when clima-
tologist James E. Hansen first focused the world’s attention on the
threat. Back then there was still time to cut back on emissions in
a measured way. More than three decades later, however, we know
mitigation didn’t happen. The atmosphere is packed with more
carbon dioxide and methane than ever. The most significant re-
duction effort to date, the much hailed 2015 Paris climate accord,
has not yet put a dent in the problem. Climate change is a clearer
and more present danger than it has ever been.
As a result, dismissing adaptation is no longer an option. In
September a newly formed global commission led by Ban Ki-
moon, Bill Gates and Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of
the International Monetary Fund, released its first report about
the urgent need to adapt to the effects of climate change, which
are quickly accelerating. Central banks, militaries and reinsurance
companies are sounding the alarm about the financial conse-
quences of doing nothing. U.S. presidential candidates (the Dem-
ocrats, anyway) talked on national television about relocatingpeople away from flooded coastlines—a topic that was long taboo.
But adapting well takes serious money, and the mechanisms
for funding it are misaligned. Many industries and governments,
still staving off a systematic overhaul of energy and economic
frameworks, are only taking incremental steps to deal with the ef-
fects of global warming. One result is that vulnerable communi-
ties already experiencing the impact are not receiving adaptation
funding from the groups that contributed most to the problem.
Powerful tools are coming on the scene that could help in-
crease adaptation funding and direct it to those who need it most.
Researchers in the emerging field of attribution science, for exam-
ple, can determine how much climate change is worsening the im-
pact of natural events, as described in a recent paper in Geophys-
ical Research Letters that found that human-caused climate
change probably led to at least 19 percent more rainfall during
Hurricane Harvey in 2017 than would have been expected from
the storm otherwise. What if fossil-fuel companies had to pay for
their role in creating the extra deluge? People working in attribu-
tion law are beginning to tackle such questions by launching law-
suits seeking to hold emitters accountable for the damage caused
by climate change and the expenses of future adaptation.
The focus on mitigation has led to research and debate about
the methods, technologies and economics of lowering concentra-
tions of greenhouse gases. But innovations for adaptation tend to
be far behind. Ideas for adapting to sea-level rise, for instance, are
too focused on “hard” solutions such as seawalls, whereas natural
features could be used more widely as protective infrastructure.
More cities could be changing their zoning laws to prevent the de-
velopment of frequently flooded land. Alignment of insurance
programs with climate threats could help prevent exploitative
practices in real estate development and mortgage lending. And
families who want to relocate to safer areas should get logistical
and financial support to do so, rather than being forced to rebuild
in increasingly dangerous locations.
Innovative resilience plans have already been launched in
some low-lying nations. Fiji’s Environment and Climate Adapta-
tion Levy, which includes a 10 percent income tax on the rich, has
produced more than $117 million in funding for projects that
make Fiji’s built and natural environments more resilient to ris-
ing waters and heavier storms. And Tri Rismaharini, mayor of
Surabaya, Indonesia, has transformed paved land into hundreds
of parks and restored mangrove forests that absorb floodwaters
and buffer the city from cyclone-generated storm surges. They
also pull carbon out of the atmosphere and act as a natural cool-
ant—thereby reducing the need for air-conditioning.
None of these adaptive actions—which are essential for health,
safety and economic stability—diminish the need for a rapid
global transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. But they do
make climate risk more visible and much harder for politicians
and the financial sector to ignore.JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE
Visit Scientific American on Facebook and Twitter
or send a letter to the editor: [email protected]© 2019 Scientific American