Climate without frontiers
There is no such thing as a frontier when people start discussing about climate change. Taming its negative impacts require a global approach, but more importantly a consensual understanding of the policies taking into account the specific local contexts.
GHG has now been clearly identified as the main culprit of the on-going climate change. Many policies at EU Level have been adopted as part of the 'Fit for 55' legislation packages to achieve carbon-neutrality, with a first milestone to reduce GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-deal/fit-55-delivering-proposals_en).
Despite the withdrawal of USA from the Paris Agreement or the ideologically-driven selfish attitude of China authorities leading to inaction, there is room for effective local actions leading to global adaptation at different geographical levels. Many cities have started to implement plans that aim at reducing the losses due to increased hazards such as heatwave or storms. Many regions hosting rivers, which cross or delimit their borders, are developping common plans to dampen uphill extreme events that affect donwstream areas. Behind those plans, there are people who believe that local actions are effective, they treat the symptoms whilst considering the local context that can aggravate the consequences of a storm or a flood, tentatively without ignoring the underlying causes.
Building resilience locally is a first step towards maintaining the quality of life of inhabitants, whilst ensuring socio-economic stability. The key objective is to reduce the risk of losses caused by extreme meteorological phenomena. Looking at solution for resilience, should we implement mitigation measures? Or better, should we design adaptation plans? And more importantly, what losses should we take into account? For information, the disaster databases of re-insurance companies are probably the best source of data about losses related to disasters, the classification of hazard is the following: general floods, flash floods, coastal floods, cold related hazards, heatwaves, droughts, and wind related hazards. And they look at two indicators: mortality rate and loss rate (income). Example from Munich Re can be found here: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378019300378-mmc1.docx
What bothers me is that in the current debates about action plans, there is hardly any mention about ESS (Ecosystem Services) losses. We all read about the 6th extinction. When is the last time you saw a flock of butterflies or heard the birdsong of a nightingale? Agricultural losses are counted as "income loss", yet those are short-term indicators. There are very few indicators related to ecological economy with a long-term view. Current Impact Assessment Model (IAM) and Climate Action Trackers (CAT) are very limited, and as noted in a very interesting paper from Jacek WISZNIOWSKI, the concept of resilience is too often looked at from an urban perspective only. We are still pretty much anthropocentric in our mindset. https://www.ceer.com.pl/Climate-Policy-in-Global-and-Local-Aspects,187048,0,2.html
I came to write this little post because I live in a frontier area (Offenburg in Baden-Württembrg), crossing a frontier (the Rhine) regularly by bike as I go to my workplace in Strasbourg. Both cities have started implementing plans in various domains to mitigate the impact of climate change. Yet, some of those plans have had negative impacts on the environment, leading to irreversible damages done to the Ecosystem. I am still hoping to see real adaptation plans that catter for all dimensions, including environmental ones.
As a conclusion here is a simple quote from a 1994 paper by Funtowics and Ravetz ("The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science"):
"The songbird's worth also lies in its teaching us about ourselves and what we want to do with our lives while we are here"
