1

Investing in
Adaptation
THE VALUE OF INCREASING FOREIGN SPENDING TOWARDS
ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change raises many questions, and presents every nation with
some difficult decisions. One of the facets of climate change that is often
ignored is the magnified effect it has on countries with less means. It is much
harder for small island nations with little money to pay for the development
which is needed to survive some of the changes that are happening now. It is
the moral responsibility of wealthier and more powerful countries to devote
more of their resources to this specific purpose. The United States, being as
wealthy as it is, should pass an increased foreign aid package, with the
express purpose of helping poorer nations adapt to climate change. The war
that is fought against poverty in struggling countries must be separate from
the commitment to help those same countries face climate change.

A vast majority of the scientific community

agrees that climate change is a man-made
problem.
One of the major arguments against investing in climate change
preparations is unfortunately that climate change is not real or that humans do
not have a hand in it and so cannot change it. In over 97% of abstracts of

published works from scientific institutions, the idea that humans cause
global warming is directly endorsed.1 It is a consensus among the scientific
community. Beyond individual scientists and research labs, many of the
worlds leading scientific organizations and agencies have made clear
statements to match. Take NASA, for example, who claims Climate-warming
trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.2 The
American Association for the Advancement of Science agrees: The scientific
evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is
occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.4 Others who have joined
in taking this stance include the American Medical Association, the American
Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American
Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, and the Geological
Society of America.3
The scientists who share this view worry that trends related to this
manmade change include more frequent and stronger storms, rising water
levels, heat waves and droughts, and even wildfires. For some less affluent
countries, especially small island nations, this can present an existential
threat. The United Nations, less than a decade ago in 2007, launched the
highest number of urgent appeals with regards to climate disasters in its
history.5 This has likely been topped since. There are certain dangers from
the climate which have always existed such as floods, droughts, hurricanes,
and so on, but global warming is magnifying the risks dramatically. Among
the scientific community, some think - after looking at data from the last

year or so- that climate change is actually accelerating thanks to our

emissions, which means catching up becomes increasingly difficult the more
time leading governments wait to take action.

Poor countries and communities are the ones

who suffer the most damage from climate
change.
Often ignored as a facet of climate change is that its consequences
affect countries unequally. There is a disparity in the way differing nations
are hit by catastrophe. Reports by organizations like the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) point out that global economic inequality
is one of the most serious factors in determining the consequences of
climate change. Worse, climate change can propagate inequality and
maintain it very effectively. The death to disaster ratio of less wealthy
countries is significantly higher than that of the more well off countries.6
People in these poorer communities often do not have a choice but to live
near water in areas where flooding is a threat, or on hillsides where
landslides are a threat, or in other dangerous environments. This compounds
with the lack of access these people have to any kind of insurance, not only
for their homes and their wellbeing, but -in the case of farmers or small
businesses- for their crop or their property. The dangers of major disasters
like flooding and hurricanes cannot be weathered so easily by countries with
less resources, and so they often endure much more damage than others.

As certain regions of the world become encroached on by deserts and

are ravaged by drought, agricultural production in places that absolutely rely
on it can be completely destroyed. This does not just include small island
countries, this will affect Latin America, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa,
where dry areas could expand by up to 60 million hectares in the near future.
The additional number of people who would be affected by malnutrition
would increase by potentially 600 million in the next 60 years.8 The problem
is not just that poor countries will suffer economic damage from climate
change; there is an actual human cost. Lives are at stake.

The risks go beyond poor countries alone.

Investing in climate change adaptation is not merely a matter of saving
the people of countries who cannot make the investment themselves. The
adverse effects of climate change go far beyond just threatening the
existence of these countries; climate change threatens even the most
developed countries in various ways.
For example, the speedy melting of glaciers drastically alters runoff
patterns, and though in the short run this may increase river flow in certain
regions, it will eliminate glaciers as a long term source of potable water. This
also is damaging to irrigation, which in turn will affect food production for
many parts of the world very negatively, including wealthier countries.
Besides the major consequences of glacial melting, there are also negative
side effects like regional flooding and the overloading of dams. In the next 60

years, 1.8 billion people could find themselves in scarce water

environments.9
Also partially caused by melting, global sea levels will rise due largely to
the expansion of the water in the ocean as its temperature rises. The sea
level rise could potentially recede shorelines by more than 30 meters.10
Currently about 100 million people live within a meter of a shoreline. Over
the next century levels could rise globally by 1 to 4 feet.11 The amount of
people who would be affected and who might have to reallocate after this
kind of rise in level would be enormous.
Disease will also be a consequence of climate change gone unchecked.
According to Margaret Chan, leader of the World Health Organization,
flooding and droughts will cause an increase in diarrheal disease. Changes in
the living ranges of certain disease spreading insects will propagate malaria
and dengue fever.12 This will disproportionately endanger developing
countries with less access to hygiene and with less control over flooding.
Weather pattern changes will affect developed countries
indiscriminately. Though the overall change in U.S. precipitation since 1900
has been an increase, different regions have seen unequal changes.13 The
northern part of the country is predicted to continue seeing rising amounts of
precipitation during the winter and spring. The southwest will see a decrease
overall as it has already. Some regions, though they will face overall
decreases in precipitation, will also experience a rise in the intensity of high
volume storms.14

Rising temperatures will continue throughout the century globally.

Assuming an increasing emissions pattern (which is basically what has been
happening for a few decades now), average temperatures globally could
increase by around 5 degrees Fahrenheit.15 This may not seem like a huge
amount, but in a big picture sense, it is a massive difference. Back near the
end of the most recent ice age, North America was covered with thousands
of feet of ice. The average temperatures at the time were only about 5
degrees colder than they are now.16 The change we are helping to speed up
will be cause of some enormous changes to the way our planet looks and
functions.
In developed countries such as the United States, where
conservationism is an issue, there are large threats to major landmarks and
ecosystems. In the northeast, heavy downpours threaten a variety of
fisheries. In the Midwest, the Great Lakes face a number of dangers.17 In the
southwest, drought and heat waves increase the risk of wildfires, which not
only destroy ecosystems, but cause damage to communities and put lives at
risk.18

Poor or developing nations lack the resources

to combat emissions the way the United
States can.
Clearly climate change is a big threat both to the small countries of the
world and the more developed ones. The problem is that some of the
countries who contribute significantly to emissions (being the main

developing countries of today), have incredible difficulty reducing them

without sacrificing their chances at becoming a developed nation.
Additionally, many of the countries who fall into the category of poor find
themselves embroiled in local wars, fights against disease, and other
problems. Secretary John Kerry has said that climate change to these
countries simply adds another level of chaos and uncertainty. 19
Though currently developed countries like the United States are the most
responsible for current climate change conditions, the largest increases in
emissions within the near future are expected to be in the developing
countries of the world. Nations like China and India rely on fossil fuels to
boost their industrial development. It is challenging to convince these
countries to jump on board with emission reduction policy because it can be
seen as stifling to their future. Some even think it is a way for the more
developed countries to hold others back.
Unfortunately, even assuming an unlikely positive scenario for emission
reduction, the effects of climate change will still be strong, and as described,
poor countries will have the worst of it. It is necessary to contemplate
adapting to the changes to reduce the damage done across the world,
especially for the nations who cannot afford to defend themselves from
climate change.

The leading countries of the world can make a

difference by investing in adaptation globally.
It is very possible to mitigate the damage done by climate change.
Preparing for emergencies, developing infrastructure, and altering certain
practices in industries like agriculture can soften the blow of global changes.
Some countries have already realized that investing in adaptation is
necessary. The United Kingdom and Netherlands have funded studies meant
to understand how to help developing countries cope with climate change.
The World Bank has spent increasing amounts of money over recent years on
energy efficiency projects throughout various developing countries.20
The awareness extends even beyond countries and political entities.
The Rockefeller foundation in 2007 announced that it would commit $70
million to the improvement of areas which are the most vulnerable and likely
victims of climate change.21 The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has become part
of a coalition which pledges to get rid of billions of dollars worth of fossil fuel
assets. The director of the fund has even stated that it is what Mr. John D.
Rockefeller would have wanted, and that it is the decision of a wise and
forward looking businessman to invest in clean energy.22 The significance of
this is that the leaders of the business world and of some countries agree
that it is possible to prepare for climate changes effects and even to counter
its progress.

Leading countries have what it takes, and

should pass increased foreign aid budgets to
combat climate change.
The idea that countries like the United States would not have the
money to spare to invest in the adaptation for climate change is ungrounded.
The U.S. spends over one third of the worlds expenditure on military,
nearing three quarters of a trillion dollars. This is more than the next 9
countries combined.23 The disturbing fact is that out of these countries, the
majority are allies. This means we spend huge amounts more on military
than any other country, and those who can even be compared are not our
competition. There is undoubtedly room in the budget to spend some money
on facing one of civilizations largest existential threats.
Currently, the United States only invests about 4% of its budget
towards international affairs, which includes foreign aid.24 Congress should be
responsible and pass a bipartisan foreign aid package intended particularly
for the purpose of adapting to climate change. It is not enough to take the
little we give other countries in aid and direct it towards these goals. The
preparations for climate change should be invested in alongside the war on
poverty across the globe. The obstacles to this are strong lobbying from the
fossil fuel industry, and from the military industrial complex, since it is the
reason we spend such unnecessary and unwarranted amounts on defense.
For this reason, it is the responsibility of forward looking corporations and
businessmen to lobby for investment in clean energy. Of course this would be

10

to their benefit, but it is to everyones benefit. The recent events which have
involved North Carolina and Georgia anti- LGBT laws exemplify that
businesses are capable of shaping policy for genuinely good purposes.
Another reason developed countries have what it takes to help others
adapt to climate change is the ability to invest in science. This is something
that the U.S. Congress along with many other developed countries has cut
funding to in the recent past. Our budget allocates a measly 3% for science.
Grant money is drying up for research institutions across the country, forcing
labs and projects to shut down. The scientific community is the reason we
know about climate change and at least some ways we can combat it. It is
also the source of research towards clean energy sources, since currently it is
deemed unprofitable by many in the private sector. If Congress can find room
in the budget to increase spending on science, the world could see a large
increase in volume of research being done towards facing climate change
and switching energy sources. The United States is home to some of the
most prestigious and well equipped research laboratories, including various
universities like MIT as well as governmental agencies like NASA.
The United States should lead the developed world by passing an
increased foreign aid package directed expressly to help others adapt to
climate change and lower emissions. It will take billions of dollars annually,
but it is a necessary expenditure. It is the responsibility of the wealthy and
powerful countries of the world to invest in knowledge about climate change

11

and how to adapt to it, for their own sake, and for that of the nations who
cannot protect themselves.

12

1. Cook, John, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark Richardson, Brbel

Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce.
"Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the
Scientific Literature." Environ. Res. Lett. Environmental Research
Letters 8, no. 2 (2013): 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
2. "Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming." Climate Change:
Vital Signs of the Planet. Accessed April 01, 2016.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.
3. Ibid.
4. "AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change." Science 191.4226 (2003):
459.AAAS.org. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
5. Oxfam International, Climate Alarm: Disasters Increase as Climate
Change Bites, Oxfam Briefing Paper, 2007.
6. Ibid.
7. "Climate Change and Poverty." (n.d.): n. pag. Synergos.org. The
Synergos Institute. Web.
8. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report
2007/2008 Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity In a Divided
World.A d
9. Oxfam International, Beyond Aid: Ensuring adaptation to climate
change works for the poor, 2009
10.
Mark Meier, University of Colorados Boulders Institute of Arctic
and Alpine Research.
11.
"Global Climate Change: Effects." Climate Change: Vital Signs of
the Planet. NASA, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.
<http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/>.
12.
Statement by Margaret Chan, Director-General, WHO, April 7,
2008.
13.
"Global Climate Change: Effects." Climate Change: Vital Signs of
the Planet. NASA, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.
<http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/>.
14.
Ibid.
15.
"National Climate Assessment: 21st Century Temperature
Scenarios." SVS:. NASA, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.
<http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4029>.
16.
"Global Climate Change: Effects." Climate Change: Vital Signs of
the Planet. NASA, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.
<http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/>.
17.
Ibid.
18.
Ibid.

13

19.
Sen. John Kerry, We Cant Ignore the Security Threat from
Climate Change, Huffington Post, Aug. 31, 2009
www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/we-cant-ignorethesecuri_b_272815.html
20.
"Climate Change and Poverty." (n.d.): n. pag. Synergos.org. The
Synergos Institute. Web.
21.
Ibid.
22. "Rockefellers to Switch Investments to 'clean Energy' - BBC News." BBC News. The BBC, 23
Sept. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475>.

23.
"U.S. Military Spending vs. the World." National Priorities Project.
N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vsworld/>.
24. Ibid.