3News » Home
Full Story

Adapt or die: World losing the battle against climate change

4 comments | Post Comment email Email printer friendly Print    Text Size:
aA
aA
aA
Increasing sea levels have caused some parts of north Jakarta to flood during high tide (Reuters)

Increasing sea levels have caused some parts of north Jakarta to flood during high tide (Reuters)

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 9:07a.m.

By Seth Borenstein

With the world losing the battle against global warming so far, experts are warning that humans need to follow nature's example: Adapt or die.

That means elevating buildings, making taller and stronger dams and seawalls, rerouting water systems, restricting certain developments, changing farming practices and ultimately moving people, plants and animals out of harm's way.

Adapting to rising seas and higher temperatures is expected to be a big topic at the UN climate-change talks in Copenhagen next week, along with the projected cost - hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it going to countries that cannot afford it.

That adaptation will be a major focus is remarkable in itself. Until the past couple of years, experts avoided talking about adjusting to global warming for fear of sounding fatalistic or causing countries to back off efforts to reduce emissions.

"It's something that's been neglected, hasn't been talked about and it's something the world will have to do," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Adaptation is going to be absolutely crucial for some societies."

Some biologists point to how nature has handled the changing climate. The rare Adonis blue butterfly of Britain looked as if it was going to disappear because it couldn't fly far and global warming was making its habitat unbearable. To biologists' surprise, it evolved longer thoraxes and wings, allowing it to fly farther to cooler locales.

"Society needs to be changing as much as wildlife is changing," said Texas A&M biologist Camille Parmesan, an expert on how species change with global warming.

One difficulty is that climate change is happening rapidly.

"Adaptation will be particularly challenging because the rate of change is escalating and is moving outside the range to which society has adapted in the past" when more natural climate changes happened, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist, told Congress on Wednesday.

Cities, states and countries are scrambling to adapt or are at least talking about it and setting aside money for it. Some examples:

- England is strengthening the Thames River flood control barrier at a cost of around half a billion dollars.

- The Netherlands is making its crucial flood control system stronger.

- California is redesigning the gates that move water around the agriculturally vital Sacramento River Delta so that they can work when the sea level rises dramatically there.

- Boston elevated a sewage treatment plant to keep it from being flooded when sea level rises. New York City is looking at similar manoeuvres for water plants.

- Chicago has a program to promote rooftop vegetation and reflective roofs that absorb less heat. That could keep the temperature down and ease heat waves.

- Engineers are installing "thermal siphons" along the oil pipeline in Alaska, which is built on permafrost that is thawing, to draw heat away from the ground.

- Researchers are uprooting moisture-loving trees along British Columbia's coastal rainforests and dropping their seedlings in the dry ponderosa pine forests of Idaho, where they are more likely to survive.

- Singapore plans to cut its flood-prone areas in half by 2011 by widening and deepening drains and canals and completing a US$226 million dam at the mouth of the city's main river.

- In Thailand, there are large-scale efforts to protect places from rising sea levels. Monks at one temple outside Bangkok had to raise the floor by more than 3 feet.

- Desperately poor Bangladesh is spending more than US$50 million on adaptation. It is trying to fend off the sea with flood control and buildings on stilts.

President Barack Obama and Congress are talking about US$1.2 billion a year from the US for international climate aid, which includes adaptation. The UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said US$10 billion to US$12 billion a year is needed from developed countries through 2012 to "kick-start" things. Then it will get even more expensive.

The World Bank estimates adaptation costs will total US$75 billion to US$100 billion a year over the next 40 years. The International Institute for Environment and Development, a London think tank, says that number is too low.

It may even be US$200 billion a year or US$300 billion a year, said Chris Hope, a business school professor at the University of Cambridge and part of the IIED study.

Nevertheless, Hope said failing to adapt would be even more expensive - perhaps US$6 trillion a year on average over the next 200 years. Adaptation could cut that by about US$2 trillion a year, he said.

As much as three-quarters of the spending will be needed in the developing world, experts say.

"Those are not the countries that caused the problem," Hope said. "There's a pretty strong moral case for us giving them assistance for the impacts that we've largely caused."

Sending money from rich countries to poor ones raises questions of who will control the spending and whether it will be wasted or stolen.

As for helping plants and animals, British climate scientist Martin Parry said the world will have to create a triage system to figure out which living things can be saved, which can't and are effectively goners, and which don't need immediate help.

"It's a brutal way to go about things," Parry said.

And what about people?

Some islands, such as the Maldives, and some coastal cities will not be able to survive rising seas no matter what protections are put in place, said Saleemel Huq, a senior fellow at IIED who runs an adaptation centre in Bangladesh. In those cases, he said, the world will need "planned relocation" of people and cities.

Parmesan said people are going to have to realise that "some areas are not going to be good enough to live in the next 100 years".

AP

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments [4]

Warren Matthews
06 Dec 2009 1:54p.m.

Reply: "Clint 04 Dec 2009 2:04p.m. As New Zealanders' we..." Clint please don't include me in YOUR we. What have we done to produce what change that is how [sic] going to destroy the earth? I beg of you to actually research the opposing arguments to all these untruths. Surely with all the 'white collar' crime in New Zealand you have at least learnt not to trust "The World Bank"? There is no environmental crisis, this is an orchestrated scam to create a lot of money, for a few, at a lot of everyday peoples expense. At least list what 'we' are responsible so I or others can enter into a debate with you and challenge your assertions.

Clint
04 Dec 2009 2:04p.m.

As New Zealanders' we have done our fair share in contributing to this change, we can sit on our hands and deny it until we are blue in the face. We hardly deserve the “clean, green” title which we have somehow adopted. What we need less of is people "pushing the buck", and ultimately a society who is prepared to take notice, and attempt to reduce the impact this may have before it is simply too late. And yes, expect it to cost! Governments are merely bodies of elected individuals, who unfortunately don't have limitless funds to poor into R&D or whatever we may require to help avert this. Some sort of tax my help not only finance the changes required, but also drive the point home that this is happening here and now, and each and everyone one of us has played some part. It is very simple to sit in your air conditioned lounge, and blame the large corporations in America / China for all the changes we are seeing, whilst sitting in front of your television in the air-conditioned house. Each drop in the stream adds to the river...

cyril
04 Dec 2009 11:22a.m.

New Zealand has not been responsable for these countrys problems they are just trying to make the public feel guilty and sea levels have risen only half a millimeter in the last 100 years so saying monks had to raise floor levels by three feet because of raising sea levels is rubbish. To combat possable sea level rise would be more correct. This false imformation of global cotastraphe is softening the public for the global tax of carbon credits.

cyril
04 Dec 2009 11:22a.m.

New Zealand has not been responsable for these countrys problems they are just trying to make the public feel guilty and sea levels have risen only half a millimeter in the last 100 years so saying monks had to raise floor levels by three feet because of raising sea levels is rubbish. To combat possable sea level rise would be more correct. This false imformation of global cotastraphe is softening the public for the global tax of carbon credits.

Post a comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide here
Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:



3News Video 3News Audio

Post your opinion