Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Adaptation

COP30’s $365 Billion Question: How Do You Measure Adaptation?

Delegates will attempt to whittle down and codify a list of “indicators” that started with more than 10,000 different options.

Measuring adaptation.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The 30th annual United Nations climate conference, which kicks off in Brazil next week, arrives on the heels of one of the strongest hurricanes ever to make landfall in the Atlantic. After Hurricane Melissa, which brought destructive wind and rain to the shores of Jamaica and was made stronger and more intense by climate change, it’s fitting that one of the most concrete outcomes expected from COP30, as the conference is known, has to do with climate adaptation.

By the end of the two-week session, leaders from around the globe may finally decide on how to measure how much progress their countries and the world at large are making to adapt to the warming we already know is coming.

Exactly 10 years ago, the landmark Paris Agreement instructed parties to establish a “global goal on adaptation.” In the years following, however, developed countries pushed to keep the focus of the annual gathering on reducing emissions and preventing the worst climate outcomes. Thus, to date, there is still no global goal on adaptation.

While part of the holdup has been an age-old debate over whether to prioritize mitigation or adaptation, another part has been the complex nature of the task. Setting a mitigation goal is straightforward — the world can aim to limit warming to a certain temperature, or to reduce emissions by a certain amount by a certain date. Adaptation can’t be distilled into a single global metric.

Countries finally made some strides at COP28, when — in the typically glacial, bureaucratic United Nations fashion — they agreed to a “framework” for action on adaptation. The framework established vague, qualitative goals across the categories of water, food, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, poverty eradication, and cultural heritage. The water goal, for example, calls for “significantly reducing climate-induced water scarcity and enhancing climate resilience to water-related hazards towards a climate-resilient water supply, climate-resilient sanitation and access to safe and affordable potable water for all.”

The framework also set four higher-level targets relating to the process of adapting to climate change. It asked that by 2030, countries conduct a risk assessment, create a national adaptation plan, make progress in implementing the plan, and establish a system for monitoring and learning from the outcomes.

For the past two years, delegates have been working to compile a list of potential metrics by which to set more specific adaptation targets and measure progress. For example, countries could measure the water goal described above by the proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality, or by the proportion of water and sanitation systems that are ready to withstand climate-related hazards. At COP29 in Baku, countries agreed to adopt a final list of metrics, called “indicators,” this year in Brazil. Experts from member countries initially proposed nearly 10,000 indicators, but have since narrowed down the proposal to 100. Whether negotiators will try to set more specific targets within each indicator is an open question.

Looming over the final talks will be a question that has been at the heart of every annual climate conference since the start — the question of finance.

Funding for adaptation has increased over the years, but still lags far behind funding for mitigation. At COP26 in Glasgow, countries tried to change that by agreeing to double climate finance for adaptation in developing countries by 2025. While it’s still too early to say what the actual numbers are for this year, it is safe to say that this has not been achieved. A recent UN report found that from 2022 to 2023, financial flows from developed to developing countries for adaptation declined from $28 billion to $26 billion.

While countries have since agreed to increase overall climate finance to $300 billion per year by 2035, the UN estimates that the cost of adaptation alone in developing countries will be anywhere from $310 billion to $365 billion per year by 2035.

Developing countries have pushed to establish discrete indicators and targets for finance during past negotiations over the global goal on adaptation, but developed countries have successfully punted the question. We’ll see if they can continue to dodge it.

Yellow

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Secrecy Is Backfiring on Data Center Developers

The cloak-and-dagger approach is turning the business into a bogeyman.

A redacted data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s time to call it like it is: Many data center developers seem to be moving too fast to build trust in the communities where they’re siting projects.

One of the chief complaints raised by data center opponents across the country is that companies aren’t transparent about their plans, which often becomes the original sin that makes winning debates over energy or water use near-impossible. In too many cases, towns and cities neighboring a proposed data center won’t know who will wind up using the project, either because a tech giant is behind it and keeping plans secret or a real estate firm refuses to disclose to them which company it’ll be sold to.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Missouri Could Be First State to Ban Solar Construction

Plus more of the week’s biggest renewable energy fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Cole County, Missouri – The Show Me State may be on the precipice of enacting the first state-wide solar moratorium.

  • GOP legislation backed by Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe would institute a temporary ban on building any utility-scale solar projects in the state until at least the end of 2027, including those currently under construction. It threatens to derail development in a state ranked 12th in the nation for solar capacity growth.
  • The bill is quite broad, appearing to affect all solar projects – as in, going beyond the commercial and utility-scale facility bans we’ve previously covered at the local level. Any project that is under construction on the date of enactment would have to stop until the moratorium is lifted.
  • Under the legislation, the state would then issue rulemakings for specific environmental requirements on “construction, placement, and operation” of solar projects. If the environmental rules aren’t issued by the end of 2027, the ban will be extended indefinitely until such rules are in place.
  • Why might Missouri be the first state to ban solar? Heatmap Pro data indicates a proclivity towards the sort of culture war energy politics that define regions of the country like Missouri that flipped from blue to ruby red in the Trump era. Very few solar projects are being actively opposed in the state but more than 12 counties have some form of restrictive ordinance or ban on renewables or battery storage.

Clark County, Ohio – This county has now voted to oppose Invenergy’s Sloopy Solar facility, passing a resolution of disapproval that usually has at least some influence over state regulator decision-making.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Why Environmental Activists Are Shifting Focus to Data Centers

A conversation with Save Our Susquehanna’s Sandy Field.

Sandy Field.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Sandy Field, leader of the rural Pennsylvania conservation organization Save Our Susquehanna. Field is a climate activist and anti-fossil fuel advocate who has been honored by former vice president Al Gore. Until recently, her primary focus was opposing fracking and plastics manufacturing in her community, which abuts the Susquehanna River. Her focus has shifted lately, however, to the boom in data center development.

I reached out to Field because I’ve been quite interested in better understanding how data centers may be seen by climate-conscious conservation advocates. Our conversation led me to a crucial conclusion: Areas with historic energy development are rife with opposition to new tech infrastructure. It will require legwork for data centers – or renewable energy projects, for that matter – to ever win support in places still reeling from legacies of petroleum pollution.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow