Climate adaption sounds easy; it's not for most people in the world

Cutting emissions is not easy, but most people — certainly most experts — agree that this effort and upheaval is worthwhile to keep the Earth’s atmosphere in a similar state to the one that has supported human society for many thousands of years.

A common refrain from those who believe it isn’t worth the trouble is “we will adapt” — a broad reference to measures that ameliorate the effects of climate change.

A 2020 paper categorising the rhetoric used to prevent climate action without resorting to outright science denial identifies “surrender” as one of the main “discourses of delay.” The authors write that it “implies that mitigation is futile and suggests that the only possible response is adaptation.”

The now-notorious speech by HSBC’s Stuart Kirk last month argued “we can solve this through adaption,” claiming that climate change fears were overblown. It is a statement heavy with assumptions.

Who is this “we”? It’s clear that it is not humanity at large. There are many people who can’t protect themselves from the effects of climate change by simply installing an air conditioner or building a seawall. Often this is due to lack of funds, but it can also be because, as the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says, warming is exceeding the ability of some systems to adapt. Once we reach 1.5°C of warming we will start running up against “hard limits,” meaning it will become physically impossible to adapt in areas such as protecting low-lying coasts and coral reefs. 

While the western world has been fixated by war in Ukraine and the return of inflation, it’s becoming more and more clear that many people in the world won’t be able to adapt. War and inflationary pressures are both further reducing the limited financing for many developing countries by increasing commodity prices and dampening appetite for emerging market bonds.

Worryingly, this issue only received minor billing in Bonn, Germany, where government representatives from around the world are now preparing for the next UN climate change conference in November. There had been previous promises by officials to look specifically at “loss and damage” — payments that would be made from wealthy to poorer countries to help them recover from climate-driven harms that are impossible to adapt to, such as powerful hurricanes.

At COP26 in November, an agreement text referred to doubling the amount of “climate finance” that goes to adaptation. Country representatives also agreed to establish a “dialogue” on a loss and damage facility, which may eventually enable fund transfers from the global north to the global south. These weak achievements were actually impressive. However in Bonn, the dialogue on loss and damage remains outside of the formal negotiating agenda.

Examples are piling up that countries already most susceptible to climate change are contending with a whole new form of economic disadvantage.

This disadvantage will only be amplified by credit ratings agencies turning a closer eye to climate impact risks. Moody’s said last month that India’s sovereign credit rating might be affected by its extreme heat waves. Standard & Poor’s recently published a note warning that low and middle income countries were exposed to more than three times as much GDP damage from climate change as high income countries. These economic losses “are likely to be higher and more persistent” given that these countries have weaker institutions and less financial capacity to adapt, the report said.

There can and will be adaptation. As things currently look, however, it will be mostly the world’s more privileged people who benefit from it. The bland assurance that “we can adapt” or “we will adapt” should be retired. Instead it should be replaced by: Who will have to adapt, and who will be able to?