CLIMATE ADAPTATION

February 2010

SIX REASONS WHY ADAPTATION IS NOW UNAVOIDABLE

Grantham Institute and Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London

Martin Parry

ntil recently, to speak of the need to adapt to climate change was to admit that full mitigation by emissions reduction would fail. This kind of talk was often labelled defeatist. During the decade up to 2005, climate negotiations focused wholly on emissions reduction in the mistaken belief that we could mitigate our way out of the problem of climate change. In retrospect, that decade of misguided attention lost us ten years of possible adaptation, and its legacy is a future of unavoidable impacts which only greater adaptation can address. The 2007 IPCC assessment concluded that even the most stringent and urgent emissions reduction could not prevent significant climate change (IPCC, 2007a). Substantial adaptation would therefore be needed. Doubt was even voiced that all impacts could be either adapted to or avoided: in other words, some impacts would have to be borne. Within the 1,000-page IPCC assessment, six over-arching reasons can be detected for concluding that, to avoid severe impacts, adaptation will need to start now and will involve heavy investment. IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ARE OCCURRING NOW Among the 29,000 environmental data series examined by the IPCC, 89 per cent exhibit trends consistent with warming. Most of the available data are terrestrial rather than oceanic, and are concentrated in Europe and North America, leading to difficulties in drawing a global picture. Nevertheless, the conclusion is that natural systems around the world are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases, and that these temperature increases are very likely to be the result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Most evident are reductions in snow, ice and frozen ground, which in turn are leading to the enlargement in size and number of glacial lakes, and to increased ground instability in permafrost regions and mountain regions. Although the greatest reduction in ice extent has occurred in the Arctic, some of the most obvious has been in tropical mountain environments such as on Mt. Kilimanjaro (see Figure 1). There is extensive evidence that recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial biological systems, including such changes as earlier timing of spring events (e.g. leaf unfolding, bird migration and egg laying; and shifts in ranges of plant and animal species). In the oceans, and mainly at high latitudes, we can currently observe shifts in ranges and abundance of alg, plankton and fish.

SIX REASONS WHY adaptation is now unavoidable

February 2010

km

1 Approximate glacier extent in 1912 Glacier extent in 2003 Rim of summit plateau

Figure 1 Changes in glacier extent on Mt. Kilimanjaro, 1912 and 2003.

IPCC, 2007a after Cullen, 2006.

Probably the most important effect of greenhouse gas emissions is in the oceans, which have become increasingly acidic as CO2 is absorbed by water to become carbonic acid. So far we have recorded an average pH reduction of 0.1. Increasing acidity is expected to have major effects on shell-forming organisms, but research on this is in its infancy. Other effects of regional climate changes on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic trends such as land-use change. These include earlier spring planting of crops, an increase in forest fires in northern high latitudes, and warmer and drier conditions in the Sahel leading to a shorter growing season. SOME HIGHLY VULNERABLE PEOPLE AND PLACES ARE ON THE BRINK The 2007 IPCC assessment concluded that the systems and sectors most vulnerable to climate change are: a: marginal and already stressed ecosystems, especially tundra, boreal forest, mountain, Mediterranean-type ecosystems, mangroves and salt marshes, coral reefs and the sea ice biomes; b: low-lying coasts, due to the threat of sea-level rise; c: water resources in low-latitude regions, due to decreases in rainfall and higher rates of evapotranspiration; e: agriculture in low-latitude regions, due to reduced water availability; and f: human health, especially in areas with low adaptive capacity. It also concluded that the most vulnerable regions are: a: the Arctic, because of high rates of projected warming on sensitive natural systems; b: Africa, especially the sub-Saharan region, because of low adaptive capacity and projected changes in rainfall; c: small islands, due to high exposure of population and infrastructure to the risk of sea-level rise and increased storm surge; and

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

February 2010

Figure 2 Changes in water availability for the 2090s relative to 198099. Values are the median for 12 climate models. White areas are where less than twothirds of the models agree, and hatched areas are where 90 per cent of the models agree.
From IPCC, 2007b.

high latitude increases

decreases over some dry regions percentage changes uncertain in desert regions changes less reliable in lower latitudes, e.g. monsoon regions

% -40 -20 -10 -5 -2 2 5 10 20 40

d: Asian mega-deltas, such as the Ganges-Brahmaputra and the Zhujiang, due to large populations and high exposure to sea-level rise, storm surge and river flooding. In these places, but also in places with higher incomes, some people can be particularly at risk, such as the poor, the very young and the elderly. Many of the regional differences in impact will stem from changes in water availability (which is essential for human health and food production). Over the past five years we have developed a clearer picture of how water availability may change regionally, with indications of important decreases in southern Europe, and in northern and southern Africa. If these projected changes should occur, then impacts in these regions could be severe (see Figure 2). MAJOR IMPACTS WILL STEM FROM ALTERED EXTREMES, AND THESE COULD ALREADY BE OCCURRING The IPCC concluded that some impacting weather events, such as heatwave, storms and drought, are likely to become more frequent, widespread and intense in the future. Tropical cyclone activity, for example, is likely to increase through the 21st century and events such as Hurricane Katrina (which hit New Orleans in August 2005 and caused an estimated 4,000 fatalities) could occur more often in the future (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 New Orleans, USA. Aerial view of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina the day after the hurricane hit on August 30, 2005. The city skyline looms in the background.
Photo: Jocelyn Augustine/FEMA.

Indeed, we can already observe indications of altered frequency and severity of weather events. For example, the August 2003 heatwave in western Europe, which led to the deaths of several thousand mainly elderly people, may well be partly explained by the global warming of 0.8oC already experienced. Figure 4 shows that, if a 4-5oC global warming were to occur (which is projected by the end of this century if no mitigating actions to reduce emissions are taken), then this kind of heatwave could be expected to occur on average once every two years: in other words it would be a normal occurrence.

SIX REASONS WHY adaptation is now unavoidable

February 2010

a
4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Temperature anomaly (K)

Figure 4 The August 2003 heatwave in Europe could become a 1 in 2, or every-other-year, event by the end of this century.
Schar et al., 2004.

Frequency

1909

1947

Frequency

Frequency

2003

Observations 1864-2002 2003

Climate simulation Present 1961-1990

Climate simulation Future 2071-2100

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

Temperature (C)

% yield change

THE OVERALL EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE WILL BE STRONGLY NEGATIVE While impacts will vary from region to region, the overall effect of climate change will be strongly negative. Some low-latitude and polar regions will experience net costs even from small increases in temperature. Other regions might experience some benefits from increases in temperature up to 2 or 3C before negative effects become more general. An example of this is a possible overall increase in wheat yield resulting from a temperature increase of 1-3C at middle and high latitudes but a decrease in yield above 3C (see Figure 5). The aggregate effect of impacts from a warming of 3oC is expected to be a net 1-5 per cent loss of global GDP. It is virtually certain, however, that such aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. In some locations and among some groups of people with high exposure, high sensitivity and/or low adaptive capacity, net costs will be significantly larger than the global aggregate.

Figure 5 Sensitivity of wheat yield in mid to high latitudes. Responses indicate cases without adaptation (orange dots) and with adaptation (green dots). The studies analysed here include a range of precipitation changes and CO2 concentrations.
From Easterling and Aggarwal, 2007.

Wheat: mid to high latitude 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean local temperature change (C)

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

February 2010

50% emissions cut by 2050 impacts in 2100 Increased water availability in moist tropics and high latitudes Decreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid latitudes and semi-arid low latitudes 1.0-2.0 billion About 20-30% of species at increasingly high risk of extinction Most corals bleached Widespread coral mortality Terrestrial biosphere tends toward a net carbon source, as: ~15% ~40% of ecosystems affected 1.1-3.2 billion Additional people with increased water stress Major extinctions around the globe

WATER

0.4-1.7 billion Increasing amphibian extinction

ECOSYSTEMS

Increased coral bleaching

Increasing species range shifts and wildfire risk Low lattitudes Decreases for some cereals Increases for some cereals Mid to high latitudes

FOOD

Crop productivity

All cereals decrease Decreases in some regions

Increased damage from floods and storms

COAST
Additional people at risk of coastal flooding each year 0-3 million

About 30% loss of coastal wetlands 2-15 million

Increasing burden from malnutrition, diarrhoeal, cardio-respiratory and infectious diseases

HEALTH

Increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts Changed distribution of some disease vectors Substantial burden on health services

SINGULAR EVENTS

Local retreat of ice in Greenland and West Antarctic

Long-term commitment to several metres of sea-level rise due to ice sheet loss

Leading to reconfiguration of coastlines worldwide and inundation of low-lying areas

Ecosystem changes due to weakening of the meridional overturning circulation 0 1 2 3 4 5C

Global mean annual temperature change relative to 1980-99 (C)

Figure 6 Selected global impacts projected for varying amounts of climate change (from IPCC WGII Technical Summary, 2007), with shaded column indicating likely impact outcome in 2100 for a rate of greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 50 per cent of current levels by 2050 (continued at a constant rate to 2100).
Modified from Parry et al., 2008.

5-59th percentile uncertainty range

MITIGATION ALONE WILL NOT AVOID SERIOUS IMPACTS: FIRSTLY, BECAUSE VERY LARGE EMISSIONS CUTS ARE REQUIRED It is now clear that current mitigation targets, even if fully achieved, would not avoid major global impacts. For example, probably the best the UNFCCC can achieve is agreement to a 50 per cent cut of global current greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, Figure 6 shows that this would not avoid exceeding a 2oC global warming. It allows an even chance of, for example, a billion additional people being short of water due to climate change, as well as many other serious global damages. Additionally, the uncertainty range shown in Figure 6 indicates a substantial risk of much larger impacts occurring. To reduce serious global

SIX REASONS WHY adaptation is now unavoidable

February 2010

80% emissions cut by 2050 impacts in 2100 Increased water availability in moist tropics and high latitudes Decreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid latitudes and semi-arid low latitudes

WATER
0.4-1.7 billion Increasing amphibian extinction 1.0-2.0 billion About 20-30% of species at increasingly high risk of extinction Most corals bleached Widespread coral mortality 1.1-3.2 billion

Additional people with increased water stress Major extinctions around the globe

ECOSYSTEMS

Increased coral bleaching

Increasing species range shifts and wildfire risk Low lattitudes Decreases for some cereals Increases for some cereals Mid to high latitudes

Terrestrial biosphere tends toward a net carbon source, as: ~15% ~40% of ecosystems affected

FOOD

Crop productivity

All cereals decrease Decreases in some regions

Increased damage from floods and storms

COAST
Additional people at risk of coastal flooding each year 0-3 million

About 30% loss of coastal wetlands 2-15 million

Increasing burden from malnutrition, diarrhoeal, cardio-respiratory and infectious diseases

HEALTH

Increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts Changed distribution of some disease vectors Substantial burden on health services

SINGULAR EVENTS
0

Local retreat of ice in Greenland and West Antarctic

Long-term commitment to several metres of sea-level rise due to ice sheet loss

Leading to reconfiguration of coastlines worldwide and inundation of low-lying areas

Ecosystem changes due to weakening of the meridional overturning circulation 1 2 3 Global mean annual temperature change relative to 1980-99 (C) 4 5C

5-59th percentile uncertainty range

damage, we need to adopt much more stringent targets at least an 80 per cent cut in global emissions, as shown in Figure 7. Even then, global damage is likely to be severe. MITIGATION ALONE WILL NOT AVOID SERIOUS IMPACTS: SECONDLY, BECAUSE ACTION NEEDS TO BE ALMOST IMMEDIATE Figures 6 and 7 present an optimistic picture of the future, however, because they assume almost immediate action on emissions reduction leading to global emissions peaking by 2015 and decreasing thereafter. Figure 8 shows a peak at three dates:

Figure 7 Selected regional impacts projected for varying amounts of climate change (from IPCC WGII Technical Summary, 2007), with shaded column indicating likely impact outcome in 2100 for a rate of greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 80 per cent of current levels by 2050 (continued at a constant rate to 2100).
Modified from Parry et al., 2008.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

February 2010

Figure 8 Global average surface temperature scenarios of peak emissions at different dates (2015, 2025 and 2035) with 3 per cent/year reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
From Parry et al., 2009.

Global mean temperature change (C)

4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

Peak emissions at 2015 Peak temperatures circa 2065

Peak emissions at 2025 Peak temperatures circa 2080

Peak emissions at 2035 Peak temperatures circa 2100

2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

Temperature uncertaintly range:

10th percentile 50th percentile 90th percentile

1: one resulting from immediate action with an emissions downturn in 2015 (and global mean temperature projected to peak around 2065); 2: another resulting from delayed action with an emissions downturn in 2025, and a temperature peak around 2080; and 3: one for a further delay in action with a 2035 downturn and peak temperatures around 2100 (Parry et al., 2009). Figure 9 maps the climate outcomes from these projections onto a table of impacts. It is, in effect, a sliding scale of impacts mapped against mitigation, describing the impact outcomes of different strategies, including different amounts of emissions reductions as well as different timings of action. The vertical lines represent projected median temperature outcomes, so that impacts to the right of the lines are as likely as not to be avoided by mitigation, and vice versa for impacts to the left. The area to the left is thus the adaptation field, the area of potential impacts which either must be borne or adapted to. From this we can see that, assuming the strongest possible action is one which leads to a global emissions downturn in 2015 and a 3 per cent annual reduction continuing thereafter, there is approximately an even chance of exceeding 2oC warming. The potential impacts, even under this scenario of strong mitigative action, are substantial; for example, 1 to 2 billion people become short of water. The consequences for delayed or reduced action can also be inferred from Figure 9. There is a substantial range of uncertainty surrounding the temperature outcomes for different courses of mitigative action, shown by horizontal bars in Figure 9, and these represent a major challenge for adaptation. Since adaptation costs increase steeply, sometimes even quadratically, with climate change there are difficult decisions to be made about the extent of cover to prepare for. In Figure 9 we assume that high levels of adaptation are needed to cover 90 per cent of impacts, moderate levels of adaptation would cover 50 per cent, and low levels would cover only 10 per cent of impacts. On this basis, for example, if global emissions did not peak until 2035 and if we wished to cover 90 per cent of expected impacts, then we should be planning to adapt to at least 4oC of warming.

Figure 9 Selected global impacts from warming associated with 3 per cent/year global emissions reduction, and with global emissions downturns in 2015, 2025 and 2035. Black vertical lines show: a) median projected global temperatures at their peak for different emissions downturn times, and b) median temperatures at recovery times in 2200 and 2300. Red vertical lines show different adaptation needs for emissions downturn in 2035 and peak temperature c. 2100. Horizontal bars indicate uncertainty range for temperature, and adaptation needs for 10, 50 and 90 per cent coverage of expected climate risk.
From Parry et al., 2009.

SIX REASONS WHY adaptation is now unavoidable

February 2010

Peak c. 2065 with downturn 2015 Peak c. 2080 with downturn 2025 Peak c. 2100 with downturn 2035 Recovery by 2200 with downturn 2015 Recovery by 2300 with downturn 2015 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5

T uncertainty range
90th percentile temp. 50th percentile temp. 10th percentile temp.

Adaptationlevels
low (10% cover) moderate (50% cover) large (90% cover)

pre-industrial temp. change C

4.5 5.5

WATER

Increased water availability in moist tropics and high latitudes Decreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid latitudes and semi-arid low latitudes 1.0-2.0 billion About 20-30% of species at increasingly high risk of extinction Most corals bleached Widespread coral mortality Terrestrial biosphere tends toward a net carbon source, as: ~15% ~40% of ecosystems affected 1.1-3.2 billion Additional people with increased water stress Major extinctions around the globe

0.4-1.7 billion Increasing amphibian extinction

ECOSYSTEMS

Increased coral bleaching

Increasing species range shifts and wildfire risk Low lattitudes Decreases for some cereals Increases for some cereals Mid to high latitudes

FOOD

Crop productivity

All cereals decrease Decreases in some regions

Increased damage from floods and storms

COAST
Additional people at risk of coastal flooding each year 0-3 million

About 30% loss of coastal wetlands 2-15 million

Increasing burden from malnutrition, diarrhoeal, cardio-respiratory and infectious diseases

HEALTH

Increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts Changed distribution of some disease vectors Substantial burden on health services

SINGULAR EVENTS

Local retreat of ice in Greenland and West Antarctic

Long-term commitment to several metres of sea-level rise due to ice sheet loss

Leading to reconfiguration of coastlines worldwide and inundation of low-lying areas

Ecosystem changes due to weakening of the meridional overturning circulation Recovery 2200 downturn 2015 Recovery 2300 downturn 2015 Peak 2065 downturn 2015 Peak 2080 downturn 2025 Peak 2100 downturn 2035 Adaptation needed to Adaptation needed to cover 10% of risks cover 50% of risks Adaptation needed to cover 90% of risks

Figure 9

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

February 2010

40 35 30 Millions of people 25 20 15 10

Numbers at risk without sea-level rise Numbers at risk with sea-level rise

Figure 10 Estimated millions of people at risk globally from coastal flooding (per annum).
From IPCC, 2007a, Technical Summary.

5 0 2020s 2050s 2080s A1FI 2020s 2050s 2080s A2 2020s 2050s 2080s B2 2020s 2050s 2080s B1

Sustainable development is both a necessary and sufficient condition for confronting climate change While current development status may well affect risk of damage from climate change, alternative future development may have an even greater effect. Of course, development experts have guessed this for some time. But climate impact assessments now support this assumption. These have used varying social and economic scenarios of the future to examine what the climate change impacts might be under differing development pathways. Their overall conclusion is that more of the difference in projected impact is due to future development than to climate change. To illustrate, Figure 10 shows estimates of the number of people globally projected to be at risk of flooding in 2080. These are much higher under the A2 scenario (high population, low income per capita and many poor people) than under the A1FI (high population and high income) or the B1 and B2 futures (global and regional governance, both with sustainable development). Even assuming no climate change and no sea-level rise, there is a striking difference between the impacts because more poor (and therefore exposed) people are assumed to be living in the A2 future in flood-prone areas in East and Southeast Asia than in the other futures. Unfortunately, the A2 pathway is the one we are following at present. The challenge for Europe and other rich countries is to transfer technologies and fund development that helps put poorer countries onto a B1 or B2 development track, making them much less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Conclusion

The previous example indicates that, with the right kind of development, we can develop our way out of the climate change crisis. But that will require a radical change in type of development. Trying simply to add on to our current development pathway the large mitigation and adaptation tasks that face us would make confronting climate change immensely costly, which may partly explain why we have not yet been successful in agreeing a way forward. For example, protecting billions of poor people against impacts would, when all the costs are added up, be far more costly than raising

SIX REASONS WHY adaptation is now unavoidable

February 2010

people from poverty. A change in paradigm of development is necessary: one of sustainable development. Traditionally we have acknowledged only two policies to confront climate change: mitigation and adaptation. But now there is a strong indication that, taken alone, these would not work because they are simply patching up a flawed development system. Much more likely to be successful is a strategy of sustainable development that combines mitigation and adaptation in a whole package of other development strategies, including high levels of efficiency and equity in resource use, investment, governance and income growth.

References Cullen, N.J. et al., 2006. Kilimanjaro glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of 20th century retreat rates. Geophys. Res. Letters 33. Easterling, W. and Aggarwal, P. 2007. Food, fibre and forest products, in: IPCC 2007a. IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L, Canziani, O.F, Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 976 pp. IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 102 pp. Parry, M.L, Palutikof, J, Hanson, C.E, and Lowe, J. 2008. Squaring up to reality. Nature Reports Climate Change 2:1-3. Parry, M.L, Lowe. J. and Hanson, C.E. 2009. Overshoot, adapt and recover. Nature 458:1102-3. Schr, C., et al., 2004. The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves. Nature 427:332-6. Recommended reading Houghton, J. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Cambridge, 431 pp. IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 102 pp. Leary, N. et al., Climate Change and Adaptation. Earthscan, London, 381 pp.

10