In 2008, my first Conference of the Parties (COP) on Climate Change in Poznan, Poland, revealed a world that was mobilized but focused on greenhouse gas mitigation and energy transition. Climate adaptation — humanity’s ability to adjust to inevitable changes — was the “B side” of the discussions, a secondary issue. The hope in Copenhagen (COP15, 2009) for a broad consensus on emissions reduction dissipated into a fiasco. The wave of fresh air in Paris (COP21, 2015), with its 1.5°C target, is proving to be short-lived. Today, that ceiling has been temporarily breached.

We will arrive at COP30 in Belém in Pará, Brazil, this November, with the planetary budget for greenhouse gas emissions rapidly reaching its limit in less than five years. We are rapidly approaching the 2°C limit — a “very uncomfortable” scenario for human life and the survival of countless species. Tipping points are just around the corner, and adaptation, once secondary, has risen to the “A-side” of the climate crisis.

The cost of inaction and the urgency of adaptation

In 30 years of exhaustive COPs, nations have failed to do their mitigation homework. Now, climate adaptation needs to be addressed first, and this is happening in a context of renewed climate denialism, in favor of an economy still dependent on fossil fuels. The costs of neglecting mitigation, transition and adaptation have escalated dramatically.

In 2008, the renowned Stern Report estimated the need for just over $500 billion annually for mitigation and a few billion for adaptation. Almost 17 years later, the costs exceed $9 trillion per year, with $5.4 trillion for mitigation, $3.4 trillion for climate transition and “only” $300 billion for adaptation — a figure that, according to experts, will be $1.35 trillion annually by 2035.

We missed a historic opportunity to pay a “payable bill” 15 years ago. Today, climate costs, especially for adaptation, fall on governments. Who will invest in renovations and construction to accommodate billions of people in scorching temperatures? Who will pay for coastal fortifications against rising sea levels? Who will bear the exponentially increasing damage from “climate disasters”? How can we invest in infrastructure without a financial return?

The introduction of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and other funds is commendable, but they fall far short of what is needed. If the oil industry, with its net worth of over $100 trillion in reserves, had contributed significantly in 2008, the drama of climate finance would be much less. We would be at COP30 celebrating a world below 1.5°C.

Brazil and COP30: a decisive moment

COP30 in Brazil emerges as a crucial turning point. Adaptation takes center stage in climate negotiations. Those who understand and work toward this idea will adapt more easily to the world that awaits us. We need to understand the interest-bearing nature of governments and appropriate the best knowledge from the risk industry and multilateral funds.

Capitalism, especially neoliberal capitalism, demands returns, even if they are patient and combined with philanthropy. The basic assumption is always profitability. So who will invest in retaining walls, rebuilding public roads and repairing flood damage? Governments. But financial markets demand austerity, and public debts, such as Brazil’s, already commit a large part of budgets to honoring financial commitments. 

We have a paradox: governments need to allocate more resources to adaptation, but their debts and climate costs continue to grow. There is no money today, much less tomorrow, for climate adaptation needs.

Given the scarcity of resources, climate financing must be structured with a view to risk avoidance, prioritizing costly and scarce public and private efforts over remediation in the future. Investments in prevention and the construction of resilient structures are much cheaper than paying the bill after the damage has been done. Insurance experts say that prevention today costs five times less than repair. This ratio may soon be 15 times more expensive, given the exponential increase in climate events.

Modeling future scenarios can no longer be based solely on the past. The climate events ahead are unknown. Climate science has competently predicted a 1.5°C increase as a viable ceiling for a decent life, but it also warns that increases above 3°C will not allow human life on Earth, except perhaps for a billionaire elite.

The challenges of climate finance have become the main item in the negotiations. The viability of our life on the planet requires a commitment to remain between 1.5°C and 2°C at most. The deadline for this is eight years or less. If denialist governments and industries continue to generate high emissions and invest minimally in sustainable solutions, we will see an increase in inequality and unpredictable impacts on the living conditions of the majority.

In another fifteen years, we will have a world that is financially rich in the hands of a few, but poor in biodiversity, with nature and ecosystems devastated, under indebted governments incapable of caring for their people. This is not the climate adaptation scenario I hope for our home, Planet Earth.

I still believe that global rentier capital can understand that adaptation is for everyone. An environmentally and socially possible world is challenged in its resilience by every tenth of a degree increase in temperature. Adaptation must come first and foremost as a chance for future generations to live a possible life here on Earth.

The paths are still possible. They involve understanding the need to make investments now and forever, with less profitability and an unconditional love for the lives of all planetary beings. There can only be one side of life for everyone on Earth. It is “Side A” of climate adaptation.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.