IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/hwwadp/26401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mitigation versus Adaptation: The Political Economy of Competition Between Climate Policy Strategies and the Consequences for Developing Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Michaelowa, Axel

Abstract

So far, the dominant paradigm in international climate policy has been mitigation while adaptation has been a low-key issue. However, with LDCs starting to push for adaptation side payments it has recently gained importance. The allocation of funds and the definition of adaptation activities are currently being discussed. The most outstanding difference between mitigation and adaptation is that mitigation activities contribute to a global public good whereas most forms of adaptation are club goods. Technical adapation such as building sea-walls can be distinguished from societal adaptation, e.g. different land-use patterns. Generally, there is a trade-off between mitigation and adaptation strategies as resources for climate policy are limited. The choice between mitigation and adaptation strategies depends on the decision-making context. While mitigation will be preferred by societies with a strong climate protection industry and low mitigation costs the voters' quest for adaptation is linked to the occurrence of extreme whether events. The policy choice in industrialised countries feeds back on the situation in developing countries. Adaptation in industrialized countries enhances the adaptation need in developing countries through declining mitigation activities. Unless this adaptation is financed by industrialised countries, developing countries will be worse off than in a mitigation - only strategy. Bisher hat sich die internationale Klimapolitik auf die Emissionsvermeidung konzentriert, während die Anpassung an veränderte klimatische Bedingungen eine untergeordnete Rolle gespielt hat. Durch die Forderung der ärmsten Entwicklungsländer nach Unterstützung bei der Anpassung hat sich die Aufmerksamkeit für diese Thematik in jüngster Zeit jedoch erhöht. Zur Zeit wird über die Alloziierung von Geldern und die Definition von Anpassungsaktivititäten verhandelt. Der größte Unterschied zwischen Emissionsvermeidung und Anpassung liegt in der Tatsache, dass es sich bei ersterem um den Beitrag zu einem globalen öffentlichen Gut handelt, während letzteres den Charakter eines Clubguts trägt. Hierbei kann zwischen technischer Anpassung, z.B. Deichbau und gesellschaftlicher Anpassung unterschieden werden. Ein Beispiel für letzteres ist die Nicht-Bewirtschaftung von Küstenregionen. Zwischen Anpassungs- und Vermeidungsaktivitäten besteht aufgrund begrenzter Ressourcen ein Zielkonflikt. Welche Strategie bevorzugt wird hängt u.a von der Stärke der Klimaschutzindustrie eines Landes sowie von dem Auftreten extremer Wetterereignisse in der Vergangenheit ab. Entwicklungsländer bevorzugen eine reine Vermeidungsstrategie auf Seiten der Industrieländer.

Suggested Citation

  • Michaelowa, Axel, 2001. "Mitigation versus Adaptation: The Political Economy of Competition Between Climate Policy Strategies and the Consequences for Developing Countries," Discussion Paper Series 26401, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:hwwadp:26401
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.26401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/26401/files/dp010153.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.26401?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rob Swart & Frank Raes, 2007. "Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work: mainstreaming into sustainable development policies?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 288-303, July.
    2. Gawel, Erik & Heuson, Clemens & Lehmann, Paul, 2012. "Efficient public adaptation to climate change: An investigation of drivers and barriers from a Public Choice perspective," UFZ Discussion Papers 14/2012, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    3. Olufunso A Somorin & Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers & Bas Arts & Anne-Marie Tiani & Denis J Sonwa, 2016. "Integration through interaction? Synergy between adaptation and mitigation (REDD+) in Cameroon," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(3), pages 415-432, May.
    4. Mizan R. Khan & Sirazoom Munira, 2021. "Climate change adaptation as a global public good: implications for financing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Axel Michaelowa, 2011. "An outsider view of climate politics," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 832-833, January.
    6. Gawel, Erik & Lehmann, Paul & Strunz, Sebastian & Heuson, Clemens, 2016. "A public choice framework for climate adaptation: Barriers to efficient adaptation and lessons learned from German flood disasters," UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2016, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    7. Heuson, Clemens & Gawel, Erik & Gebhardt, Oliver & Hansjürgens, Bernd & Lehmann, Paul & Meyer, Volker & Schwarze, Reimund, 2012. "Fundamental questions on the economics of climate adaptation: Outlines of a new research programme," UFZ Reports 05/2012, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).
    8. Gawel, Erik & Lehmann, Paul & Strunz, Sebastian & Heuson, Clemens, 2018. "Public Choice barriers to efficient climate adaptation – theoretical insights and lessons learned from German flood disasters," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 473-499, June.
    9. J. David T�bara, 2003. "Spain: words that succeed and climate policies that fail," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 19-30, March.
    10. Michael Dutschke, 2007. "CDM Forestry and the Ultimate Objective of the Climate Convention," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 275-302, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:hwwadp:26401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hwwaade.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.