At a cost of less
Millennium Project, overconfidence in chances
tainable economic development (e.g., malar-
of success, unforeseen circumstances) the resid-
ia, hunger, water stress) without necessarily
than $34 billion
ual benefits would exceed what can be obtained
addressing other significant problems (e.g.,
per year (for
through mitigation, at least through the fore-
poverty, access to safe water and sanitation,
20102015),
seeable future, and probably at lower cost.
illiteracy, child and maternal mortality),
Table 10 doesn't show the differences
broad pursuit of sustainable economic devel-
focused adapta-
between the cumulative reductions in mortality
opment would, not surprisingly, deliver
tion would deliver
or population at risk between the present and
greater benefits but could also cost more
than focused adaptation.85
2085 due to the two adaptation options rela-
far greater
tive to the mitigation options. Given that
benefits than
hunger, malaria, and coastal flooding would
Mitigation Versus Adaptation
would even
be responsible for millions of deaths annually
Table 10 compares for the A1FI (warmest
between 1990 and 2085, these cumulative
but richest) and the A2 (poorest) emission
halting climate
reductions ought to be very large indeed,87
scenarios, the costs and benefits of two sce-
change.
narios of mitigation--the Kyoto Protocol and
perhaps in the range of all deaths in wars,
a halt in climate change as of 1990--against
genocide, and other atrocities during the 20th
two adaptation scenarios, namely, focused
century, which one estimate pegs at 231 mil-
lion people.88 Thus, consideration of the
adaptation and sustainable economic devel-
opment. In this table, benefits are provided
cumulative reductions would favor either
in terms of
adaptation approach, because unlike mitiga-
tion, adaptation will also reduce present-day
· declines in mortality from hunger, malar-
climate-sensitive problems in the near-to-
medium term, and will start to provide a
ia, and coastal flooding,
· changes in net population at risk of
steady stream of benefits in the very near term.
By contrast, because of the inertia of the cli-
water stress,
· progress toward the MDGs, and
mate system, the benefits of mitigation will
· habitat lost to cropland.
not be significant until decades have elapsed.
This table shows that, at a cost of less than
Adaptive Management of
$34 billion per year (for 20102015), focused
Climate Change Risks
adaptation would deliver far greater benefits
than would even halting climate change.
Moreover, it would do so at one fifth the cost
It has sometimes been argued that it is
of the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol.
only fair that present generations expend
Given the sorry track record of external aid
resources on mitigation now, instead of leav-
over the past few decades--particularly where
ing future generations with a bigger mess
institutions to bolster economic development,
and a larger clean-up bill. But as the data pre-
human capital, and technological change are
sented thus far clearly demonstrates, well-
weak and governance is poor--several analysts
being tomorrow is best enhanced by adapta-
are skeptical that external aid can ensure sus-
tion, or sustainable development, or both--
tainable economic development.86 As these ana-
not by mitigation.
In light of the benefits associated with
lysts correctly note, sustainable economic devel-
focused adaptation and sustainable develop-
opment can rarely, if ever, be imposed or pur-
ment, the most cost-effective and compre-
chased from outside. The necessary institution-
hensive policies to address climate change in
al changes have to come from within.
the near-to-medium term will eschew direct
Nevertheless, according to Table 10, even if the
greenhouse gas emission controls that go
UNMP's target goals are met at only the 20 per-
beyond "no-regret" policies, that is, policies
cent level for whatever reason (e.g., corruption,
that would entail no net costs. Instead, poli-
rosy cost estimates generated by the UN
20