Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T15:05:16.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Emission abatement versus development as strategies to reduce vulnerability to climate change: an application of FUND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2005

RICHARD S.J. TOL
Affiliation:
Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University and Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, Hamburg, Germany

Abstract

Poorer countries are generally believed to be more vulnerable to climate change than richer countries because poorer countries are more exposed and have less adaptive capacity. This suggests that, in principle, there are two ways of reducing vulnerability to climate change: economic growth and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Using a complex climate change impact model, in which development is an important determinant of vulnerability, the hypothesis is tested whether development aid is more effective in reducing impacts than is emission abatement. The hypothesis is barely rejected for Asia but strongly accepted for Latin America and, particularly, Africa. The explanation for the difference is that development (aid) reduces vulnerabilities in some sectors (infectious diseases, water resources, agriculture) but increases vulnerabilities in others (cardiovascular diseases, energy consumption). However, climate change impacts are much higher in Latin America and Africa than in Asia, so that money spent on emission reduction for the sake of avoiding impacts in developing countries is better spent on vulnerability reduction in those countries. His last big project in a long career, Jan Feenstra managed the Netherlands Climate Change Assistance Programme through which the Dutch Government sponsors climate change research in developing countries. He hated how climate change detracted from what he considered to be the real issues. This paper is dedicated to his memory.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper benefited from discussions with Hadi Dowlatabadi and TomDowning. Three anonymous referees made constructive comments. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, on 10 April, 2002. The comments of the participants are greatly appreciated. The US National Science Foundation through the Center for Integrated Study of the HumanDimensions of Global Change (SBR-9521914) and the MichaelOtto Foundation for Environmental Protection provided welcome .nancial support. All errors and opinions are mine.