Strategies to respond to climate change fall into one of two camps: mitigation and adaptation. You’ve probably heard these terms being tossed around and for good reason. Understanding their meaning and implication is key to getting a grip on how to address current and future climate change.
Simply put, adaptation means anticipating and responding to the threats caused by changes in climate that are already happening or are predicted to happen. Adaptation requires a realistic view of the problems to come and a clear-eyed look at the ones we are already facing in order to figure out how to handle these current and inevitable challenges. It means adapting and adjusting and working around the situation at hand. Adaptive strategies include things like building sea walls, planting drought-tolerant crops, improving water use and storage, and managing land to reduce wildfire risks.
Mitigation means trying to change the situation at hand, rather than just responding to it. In other words, aiming to halt the warming of the planet and avoid the worst of the fall out altogether. In practice, it means reducing greenhouse gas emissions by moving away from fossil fuels, and supporting the planet’s natural ability to store these gases in carbon sinks. Mitigation strategies include things like moving to renewable energy sources and away from coal and natural gas, retrofitting old buildings to make them more energy efficient, using electric vehicles charged with green energy rather than internal-combustion vehicles, and planting and preserving forests that absorb and store carbon dioxide.
Adaptation is unavoidable. We have failed to heed the innumerable warnings and we are already living with the consequences. We have no option but to adapt. Even if we were to reach zero emissions tomorrow, we would still need to contend with the endless challenges we are already facing such as mass biodiversity loss and altered weather patterns.
But adaptation is not enough. If we continue to fail to sufficiently mitigate, no amount of adaptation will save us from the fallout. Adaptation versus mitigation is not a question of either/or. Both are crucial if we are to avoid having lives that are totally unrecognisable within the next 100 years. But we must ensure that we divide our focus and finances optimally between the two.
What is South Africa’s climate strategy?
South Africa’s National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (NCCAS) policy document provides guidance for government, stakeholders, NGOs and the private sector and is a good place to look to understand how our country is approaching this challenge.
According to the NCCAS, in South Africa, the “observed rate of warming” has been 2 degrees per century which is more than twice the global rate of temperature increase. With this has come a host of weather-related problems which are expected to worsen. The document lays out two possible futures. One in which the world has taken mitigation seriously (they call this the “high mitigation” scenario) and one in which it hasn’t (the “low mitigation” scenario). In the years to come, under low mitigation, temperatures are predicted to rise drastically in South Africa. Some estimates go as high as a 6 degree increase in the western, central and northern interior, with a 4 degree increase on average by 2080-2100.
Crucially, this includes an increase in very hot and heatwave days. In this scenario, overall we will have drier conditions with extreme rainfall events over the interior. More and more we will face the fallouts of extreme droughts and devastating floods: threats to our water resources, food security, health, infrastructure, and biodiversity.
In the high mitigation scenario, temperatures will be contained at about 2.5 degrees, with less drastic changes in rainfall and extreme weather events. The G20 Climate Risk Atlas paints a more optimistic high mitigation scenario in which temperatures could peak at 1.5 degrees in 2050 and drop to 1.1 degrees increase in 2100. Clearly, even just a 1-2.5 degree increase (basically the best-case scenario) is still bad. But the cost of adapting to that versus to a 6 degree increase is astronomical.
The True Cost of Climate Inaction in South Africa
Most of South Africa’s mitigation budget goes towards clean energy generation, as it should. The problem is that only R87 million of the R105 billion per year in mitigation costs goes towards low-carbon transport, despite the fact that the transport sector is the third largest emitter in South Africa. In contrast, R60 billion was given in fossil fuel subsidies between 2019 and 2021.
R105 billion for mitigation may seem like an eye-popping number but the cost of trying to adapt to a low-mitigation scenario would be even scarier. The G20 Risk Atlas report estimates that South Africa risks losing 5% of its GDP by 2050, and 13% by 2100, without urgent mitigation. If we were to take drastic action and invest in a low-carbon economy, we could contain the losses to 3,3% by 2050.
The disastrous Kwa-Zulu Natal floods in 2021 serve as a sobering preview of the economic consequences that await us in a low-mitigation future. Flooding wreaks havoc on a massive scale, destroying crops, leading to increased food insecurity; damaging infrastructure; and displacing populations. After the floods, it was calculated that at least 826 companies were affected, which cost the South African economy approximately R7 billion. That is just from one season of flooding in one province. Under a low mitigation scenario, flooding will become significantly worse, more widespread, and more frequent. And consequently, the economic fallout will sky rocket.
We cannot adapt our way out of a crisis we refuse to mitigate. Every rand spent on mitigation today saves us multiples in adaptation costs tomorrow. South Africa stands at a crossroads: we can either invest strategically in mitigation now and manage a challenging but navigable 1-2.5 degree increase, or we can continue with business as usual and face the astronomical costs of adapting to a 6-degree warmer world.
In short, climate adaptation is not a choice. It’s dodging the flames as we run full pelt. It’s arming ourselves with the necessary protective gear as we head deeper into the fire, in the wild hope that we’ll make it to tomorrow with our basic needs met. Climate mitigation is changing course. It’s making drastic big decisions, stepping into the unfamiliar, getting used to new technology, and getting the blaze under control. It is a choice. Albeit an obvious one – between managing a controlled burn or letting the whole world go up in flames.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Josie is a writer and researcher who wants to do her bit to make the world a little greener. She is currently doing her PhD in Philosophy at King’s College London where she is researching ethical questions surrounding AI.
