<<  <  >  >>

impacts--positive and negative--across the

against a sea level rise of about 0.66 meters in

board. That approach entails significant near-

2100--equivalent to about 0.52 meters in 2085

term costs, whereas any payoff will be delayed

compared with 0.34 meters under the warmest

far into the future. The second approach,

(A1FI) scenario--would vary from $2.6 to $10

billion during the 21st century.79 I will assume

focused adaptation, would reduce vulnerabili-

ty to climate-sensitive effects now through

$10 billion for the purposes of this paper.

2085 by focusing on individual threats and

Governments could, moreover, discourage mal-

attacking those threats simultaneously.

adaptation by refusing to subsidize insurance

However, developing countries are most

and/or protective measures that allow individu-

at risk of climate change not because they

als to offload private risks to the broader public.

will experience greater climate change, but

because they lack adaptive capacity to cope

Water Stress

with its impacts. Hence, another approach to

Although, as Table 3 shows, climate change

addressing climate change would be to

could relieve water stress, there are many mea-

enhance the adaptive capacity of developing

sures that would help societies cope with pre-

countries by promoting broad development,

sent and future water stress regardless of their

i.e., economic development and human capi-

cause. Among them are institutional reforms

tal formation, which, of course, is the point

to treat water as an economic commodity by

of sustainable economic development.81

allowing market pricing and transferable prop-

erty rights to water. Such reforms should stim-

Moreover, since the determinants of adaptive

ulate widespread adoption of existing but

and mitigative capacity are largely the same,

underused conservation technologies and lead

enhancing the former should also boost the

latter.82 Perhaps more important, advancing

to more private-sector investment in R&D,

which would reduce the demand for water by

economic development and human capital

all sectors. For example, new or improved crops

formation would also advance society's abili-

and techniques for more efficient use of water

ty to cope with all manner of threats, whether

climate related or otherwise.83

in agriculture could enhance agricultural pro-

ductivity. That would provide numerous ancil-

One approach to estimating the costs and

lary benefits, including reductions in the risk

benefits of sustainable economic development

of hunger and pressures on freshwater biodi-

is to examine the literature on the MDGs,

versity while also enhancing the opportunity

which were devised to promote sustainable

for other in-stream uses (e.g., recreation).

development in developing countries. The

Notably, diversion of water to agricultural uses

benefits associated with these goals--halving

Developing

might be the largest current threat to freshwa-

global poverty; halving hunger, halving the

countries are

ter biodiversity.

lack of access to safe water and sanitation;

most at risk of

Improvements in water conservation fol-

reducing child and maternal mortality by 66

lowing such reforms are likely to be most pro-

percent or more; providing universal primary

climate change

nounced for the agricultural sector, which is

education; and reversing growth in malaria,

not because they

responsible for 85 percent of global water con-

AIDS/HIV, and other major diseases--would

sumption. A reduction of 18 percent in agri-

exceed the benefits flowing from the deepest

will experience

cultural water consumption would, on aver-

mitigation (see Table 9). Yet, according to the

greater climate

age, double the amount of water available for

UN Millennium Project, the additional annu-

all other uses.80

change, but

al cost to the richest countries of attaining the

MDGs by 2015 is pegged at about 0.5 percent

because they lack

of their GDP.84 That is approximately the

Sustainable Economic Development:

adaptive capacity

A Third Approach

same cost as that of the ineffectual, but costly,

So far I have examined two approaches to

Kyoto Protocol.

to cope with its

address warming through the foreseeable

Since focused adaptation would only

impacts.

future. The first, mitigation, would reduce

address the climate-sensitive barriers to sus-

19