The essence of Part 2 of the 6th IPCC report
by Magali Reghezza
Her biography
Magali Reghezza is a member of the High Council on Climate since December 2019. She is an associate professor and has a PhD in geography and planning. She is a lecturer at the ENS Ulm and a member of the Meudon physical geography laboratory.
Her research and publications focus on the political and social geography of the environment. She especially works on disaster risk reduction, vulnerability, resilience and adaptation of socio-ecological systems to global environmental threats, in particular climate change and sustainable land planning.
Geography specialist and member of the High Council on Climate, Magali Reghezza, draws out the main points of Part 2 of the latest IPCC report. Published at the end of February 2022, this second chapter deals with the impacts and adaptation of global warming.
Part 2 of the 6th IPCC report establishes an unequivocal truth that the climate is changing, and has changed, because of human activity. The consequences, sometimes irreversible, can now be perceived. Extremes are increasing, far beyond the effects of natural variability. Sea levels are rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, permafrost is melting…
The emergence of composite risks
The impacts of climate change blend and interact with each other. For example, warmer temperatures during the winter cause early germination of buds, exposing them to early frosts. Storms and sea level rise have a combined effect on coastal recession.
Additionally, factors that are both climate-related and non climate-related combine to create composite risks. Pollution, overuse of local resources, invasive species, etc. All these add up to climate factors, resulting in more damage to the ecosystems, and generating retroactive consequences on climatic, hydrologic, and pedologic dynamics. Therefore, climate and biodiversity crises are closely linked. Their respective impacts mutually amplify.
Dramatic effects on human societies
These rapid transformations of our environment have dramatic effects on human societies. The report shows that, by 2040, all types of risks become significantly higher, depending on (and correlated with) the degree of global warming.
In the five causes for concerns identified by the IPCC, beyond 2°C, risk levels become high to very high. Whilst loss and damage will be unequally distributed across the globe, we will all be concerned. By 2100, 50 to 75% of the global population could be exposed to periods of “life-threatening climatic conditions” (such as life-threatening extreme heat or humidity).
Already now, human societies are exposed to “imminent widespread, substantial and potentially irreversible risks”. Every half of a degree of additional warming will increase the global risk by 30%. 3.3 to 3.6 billion humans already live in conditions that make them highly vulnerable to these risks.
That’s an essential point to understand. The level of vulnerability of individuals, societies and territories creates the conditions for major crises. The degree of damage is closely linked to the actual or inherited vulnerabilities that prevent populations from adapting and becoming more resilient. These vulnerabilities are enhanced by inequalities of various types, which interact and are worsened by the perturbation caused by climate change.
Ad hoc adjustments won’t be enough
Despite these conclusions, and contrary to a catastrophic approach, the IPCC shows that adaptation is an efficient response to reduce (and sometimes even prevent) the risks of loss and damage. But adaptation must be proactive and anticipated, not reactive and corrective.
In this changing climate, ad hoc adjustments won’t be enough to address the issue. Only structural transformations, involving redefined social and economic systems, will allow us to be truly resilient. Incremental adaptation must therefore be coupled with transformational adaptation. This will allow us to use all types of action-levers – beyond technical innovation or individual behavioral change – by looking for co-benefits.
Avoid maladaptation
The IPCC warns us about maladaptation, which increases the risks that it aims to reduce or prevent. Though it may seem counter-intuitive, risk analysis must take into account not only threat, exposure and vulnerability, but also proposed mitigation and adaptation solutions.
Maladaptation is often caused by ad hoc reactive adjustments, and siloed diagnostics, which overlook the cascading effects and their negative medium and long-term impacts. It often stems from the belief that the ultimate solution will come from technological innovation. This belief only maintains the status quo, and moves the issue out further in time (into future generations) and in space (into other territories). This means the roots of our vulnerability are never addressed – whether they may be our methods of production and consumption, equitable access to resources, the constraints put on households’, companies and public authorities’ choices, the relationship between the accumulation of goods and individual happiness, the tension between the fantasy of abundance and the inevitable temperance required by a finite world.
This topic is particularly critical because maladaptation impacts fragile, excluded and marginalised publics more than others. To prevent this, we must go for solutions that are reversible and that keep our options open. Adaptation solutions must be evaluated in terms of co-benefits, which can vary in time, and depend on the local, national, and global situations.
The soft and hard limits of adaptation
To make adaptation more realistic, the IPCC also addresses the issue of feasibility. The report states that two types of limits could make adaptation inefficient. Soft limits refer to all the solutions that exist, but aren’t accessible, for technical, financial, legal or (geo)political reasons. These soft limits can be overcome by innovation, development aid, cooperation etc. Hard limits, on the other hand, refer to situations when the pressure is too high to stay within acceptable risk levels. There are three kinds of hard limits: the level of warming, the loss of biodiversity, and inequality (and its consequences).
Beyond 1.5°, ecosystems, as well as social systems, will reach their adaptation limits. And, based on current GHG emissions, 1.5° will be reached in 10 years. Concretely, this means that adaptation won’t be enough – adaptation and mitigation must come together.
Biodiversity is also a hard limit, because our life on earth depends on the resources it offers. Beyond ecosystemic services, the IPCC shows the potential that lies in nature-based adaptation solutions, which bring a number of co-benefits in terms of mitigation (natural carbon sinks for example), as well as biodiversity preservation.
The report insists on the fact that every time a planetary boundary is exceeded, our capacity for social (collective and individual) adaptation reduces. However, “social tipping points” have been identified, though they remain misunderstood.
The need for a just transition
The report points out that our adaptation capabilities will only increase if our sustainable development and welfare goals are met. In return, pursuing human development will require mitigation of global warming and biodiversity loss. To be sustainable, development must be resilient to a warming climate and a transitioning world. To be efficient, development must be just.
The question of preserving our welfare, security and sovereignty can’t be addressed without addressing our resilience to climate change, current and future. Mitigating warming and preserving biodiversity are essential conditions to the resilience of our human societies, which also depend on our ability to reduce inequalities.