4.5 Article

Climate change adaptation as a global public good: implications for financing

期刊

CLIMATIC CHANGE
卷 167, 期 3-4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03195-w

关键词

Cross-border climate risks; Adaptation; Climate finance; Global public goods; Polluter-pays principle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the importance of adaptation in the global climate change agenda, pointing out that the current funding mechanisms are still inadequate to meet the demands. It suggests viewing adaptation as a global public good and argues that this reframing can improve the efficiency of adaptation finance collection.
Beginning as an afterthought in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, adaptation as an agenda has come a long way since 1992. With no ambitious mitigation, recent years have witnessed an increasing frequency of extreme climate events, including cross-border or borderless climate risks. Accordingly, the Paris Agreement frames adaptation as a global goal and global responsibility. However, financing for adaptation continues to remain extremely poor, relative to the estimated needs, even though the regime has obligatory provisions for support by developed countries. Why is this so? Why should the majority of the countries, with an insignificant contribution to causing the problem, suffer from increasing climate impacts? How can adaptation finance be enhanced at scale? As a response to these queries, the paper substantiates three claims: (1) that poor funding can be attributed to the territorial framing under the regime that conceptualizes adaptation largely as a local or national public good and, hence, the inefficacy of market mechanisms, (2) that it makes conceptual and political sense to consider adaptation as a global public good, and (3) that such a reframing should make a difference in boosting adaptation finance. In a multi-polar world with different views on adaptation finance, multilateral agencies should lead in promoting the proposed framing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据