Equitable Adaptation – A Moral Imperative?

11/17/20223 min read

With climate change, as in any crisis, underlying inequality tends to both exacerbate the effects of the crisis as well as be aggravated by the occurrence of the crisis.

“Long-standing socioeconomic inequities can make underserved groups, who often have the highest exposure to hazards and the fewest resources to respond, more vulnerable” (NOAA, 2021). In the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (‘IPCC’), the IPCC noted that vulnerability is “driven by patterns of intersecting socioeconomic development, unsustainable ocean and land use, inequity, marginalization, historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, and governance (high confidence)” (IPCC, 2022). With less savings (Pelling and Garschagen, 2019), poorer groups are less able to uproot themselves to escape an upcoming climate event, or, after the disaster, to receive treatment or rebuild their homes and communities. In short, groups who are already at risk or vulnerable on any level will feel the adverse consequences of climate events much more starkly and for a longer duration.

Vulnerable groups also tend to be the least responsible for past and present carbon emissions.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, emissions generally rise with wealth – for example, richer people consume more meat, take more flights, own more cars and private jets, and use more electricity for their devices and appliances (Roston et al, 2022). “The richest 1%— the more than 60 million people earning $109,000 a year—are by far the fastest-growing source of emissions. They live all over the world, with about 37% in the U.S. and more than 4.5% each in Brazil and China” (Roston et al, 2022). In other words, it is the people who have not contributed to the climate crisis who will suffer the greatest.

Even amongst the poor, vulnerability varies.

Within the vulnerable, “impoverished women, children, elderly and disabled people, migrants and those from minority groups” are hit the hardest in any crisis (Pelling and Garschagen, 2019). A report by the OECD noted that “some groups are more lacking in the financial, social, and political means of securing alternative livelihoods less exposed to risk than others. Women for example may be constrained by social and cultural structures that place them in inferior social positions, limiting their access to income, education, public voice, and survival mechanisms.”

As the world braces for more extreme, frequent, intense, and prolonged climate events, scientists have been working hard at designing measures to reduce the causes of climate change and adapt to the effects of this phenomenon.

Pelling and Garschagen (2019) argue – and I agree – that adaptation must be equitable – “[policymakers] must put the needs of the most vulnerable first”, “putting them at the centre of decision-making with funding”, instead of continuing to “[perpetuate old patterns that concentrate land, capital, and resources in the hands of a few”. Adaptive measures must “focus on social vulnerability, rather than broader resilience, to bring disparities to the foreground” (Pelling and Garschagen, 2019.

Poor communities face a double burden of uneven development and climate change (Pelling and Garschagen, 2019) and therefore often experience any climate event under existing disadvantaged circumstances. They often live in more dangerous areas with fewer or lower standards of amenities and infrastructure, have less access to emergency responses, own fewer or more fragile assets and equipment, and may not have “the information and tools they need to make adaptation decisions and to hold authorities to account” (Pelling and Garschagen, 2019).

Pelling and Garschagen present a number of suggestions aid the development of an equitable framework of adaptation. Generally:-

  • Poorer and more vulnerable groups must be consulted as to their concerns and preferences, and adaptive measures must be designed with due recognition and respect of local customs and culture. Locals must be given skills training and leadership roles.

  • Inequality concerns must be integrated into climate impact modelling.

  • There must be collaboration and partnership between the scientific community and local communities. Scientists and locals must co-produce knowledge.

In designing and implementing adaptation measures, especially in respect of the more vulnerable, there must be sensitivity as to the unique circumstances of the various individuals, social groups, and communities. My worry is that there may be insufficient understanding or prioritisation, at a national or international level, of the time and resources required to be allocated to the investigation and understanding of these unique circumstances. Some may say it is more efficient to retrieve and analyse data using software and models than to conduct surveys and interviews in the field with the help of interpreters and anthropologists.

Further, to address climate impacts from the perspective of contextual vulnerability, we will require a far more politically nuanced approach. Sectoral and technological adaptive solutions must be formulated while also identifying and seeking to resolve inherent and fundamental structural inequities and inequalities.

The road ahead is rough and we must act sooner rather than later. It is a moral duty.

References: