Living with global warming...

Here's a study that looks at the cost of the Kyoto Protocol vs. adapting to global warming. Adaptation is a far better strategy.

Should we try to prevent global warming? Or should we use our resources to adapt to the consequences of warming? An argument for the former is that climate change will exacerbate existing problems — specifically, malaria, hunger, water shortage, coastal flooding and threats to biodiversity. This is a particular concern for developing countries, many of which are beset by these problems but lack the economic and human resources needed to obtain and implement technologies that would finesse or cope with them. This paper analyzes costs and benefits of two different approaches. One approach — mitigation — would limit carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere largely by reducing emissions due to human activities. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of this approach. The second approach — adaptation — would reduce society’s vulnerability to, or help cope with, the consequences of global climate change due to higher CO2 emissions.

The projections underlying this study are from researchers who are sympathetic to mitigation. However, their conclusions show that adaptation is preferable. Cost estimates are based on reports from various United Nations-affiliated organizations. The findings:

* By 2085, the contribution of (unmitigated) warming to the above listed problems is generally smaller than other factors unrelated to climate change.

* More important, these risks would be lowered much more effectively and economically by reducing current and future vulnerability to climate change rather than through its mitigation.

* Finally, adaptation would help developing countries cope with major problems now, and through 2085 and beyond, whereas generations would pass before anything less than draconian mitigation would have a discernible effect.

The Kyoto Protocol will cost participating countries about $165 billion annually. Kyoto, however, will not stabilize, much less reduce, atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Stabilizing atmospheric levels of CO2 at 550 parts per million (much higher than today’s levels) would cost several trillion dollars. Halting climate change, if that were possible, would cost many more trillions of dollars. Focused adaptive measures to reduce or eliminate the risks posed by malaria, hunger, water shortage, coastal flooding and threats to biodiversity, by contrast, would cost less than $10 billion a year.