"Adapting to climate change has limits"

Olivia Serdeczny, Photo: Falk Weiß

Olivia Serdeczny

I studied philosophy and got into the field of climate research via a small detour. The decisive moment was an interdisciplinary seminar on the ethics of geoengineering at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) organised by a physicist and a philosopher. It was here that I noticed I was always missing something of the natural sciences during my studies. I was so fascinated by the seminar content, the clarity of the physics and the discussion about questions of justice connected to climate change, that I stayed with the topic.

For me, climate change is a question of justice. Who is responsible for emissions, and who for the fallout? Who will ultimately have to pay for the damage? Rich industrial nations are responsible for a large portion of CO2 emissions, and therefore the rise in temperature. But in the future it will be developing countries that are affected more severely by global warming – because of their geographic location, their economic structure, as well as their lack of means to adapt.
The time factor, however, is extremely important. To adapt to climate change, these countries would need decades. The required structures - a stable political system, a good education system, expertise or gender equality - cannot be established overnight. It is also unfair to expect that. This needs to be acknowledged. The Paris Climate Agreement can also provide an institutional framework. To date, though, estimations about the limits of adaptability are still too ambiguous and are hardly discussed in the proceedings. Further research is also necessary to fill the gaps in our knowledge of what future adaptability will depend on and how it will develop.
What is more, there is damage that cannot be avoided. The affected states speak of 'Loss and Damage'. The rising sea levels and accompanying loss of landmass cannot be prevented for island states, for example. Politically, this is not a simple debate as there is no consensus about which effects of climate change can be moderated by adaptation, and who is responsible for a 'failure' to adapt. While funds are already available for adaptation measures, compensation payments for unavoidable damage due to climate change are, politically speaking, a very touchy subject and not discussed openly.

In my PhD dissertation, I am investigating what arguments scientific findings can offer to strengthen the position of countries that are especially threatened in the 'Loss and Damage' sector of climate negotiations. The foundations of this are the socio-economic and natural sciences analyses of our research group and my own observations and conversations at the climate negotiations.

For five years, I have been regularly attending international climate conferences as an advisor to island states and developing countries in attendance. I am interested in what influence scientific findings and facts have on the negotiations, and which strategies individual countries use to further their interests. In fact, all countries have the same rights and can use their veto to block any and all agreement decisions. But this does not happen often. Wealth, military strength, diplomatic pressure and financial dependencies have huge significance in this context – mostly to the advantage of the wealthier nations. I am looking at what kind of leverage the poorer states have and how they can use it.

The idea that staying strong in negotiations can be worthwhile has been shown to be true in the past by the G77 + China – a unification of almost every developing country. In 2012 and 2013, this coalition used its power in the 'Loss and Damage' negotiations to compel an institutional mechanism to deal with damage caused by climate change at the last minute. I am attempting to reconstruct the conditions that lead to this using policy documents, interviews and reports. My hypothesis is that arguments have indirectly strengthened the positions of developing countries by providing good reasons for their persistence and thus legitimizing it. Indeed, when I know that I am in the right and can justify it well, I conduct myself differently and don't give in as easily.
The interests of poorer countries in particular will gain in strength in the future. If the damage gets worse, we will no longer be able to ignore it. The limits of adaptability are also becoming more and more apparent as climate change progresses. Potential donor countries will also be increasingly invested in mitigating the consequences of climate change in developing countries. Because, after all, when livelihoods disappear, the people will leave their homeland and make their way to the wealthier nations.

Share

Folgender Link wurde Ihrer Zwischenablage hinzugefügt. Sie können diesen jetzt nutzen, um ihn in Ihren Netzwerken zu teilen.

Datenschutzeinstellungen

Wir verwenden Cookies, um die Benutzerfreundlichkeit unserer Website zu verbessern und sicherzustellen.