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
Energy

The Nuclear Boom’s Labor Problem

All the workers who helped build Georgia’s new Vogtle plants are building data centers now.

A hardhat on AI.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Trump administration wants to have 10 new large nuclear reactors under construction by 2030 — an ambitious goal under any circumstances. It looks downright zany, though, when you consider that the workforce that should be driving steel into the ground, pouring concrete, and laying down wires for nuclear plants is instead building and linking up data centers.

This isn’t how it was supposed to be. Thousands of people, from construction laborers to pipefitters to electricians, worked on the two new reactors at the Plant Vogtle in Georgia, which were intended to be the start of a sequence of projects, erecting new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors across Georgia and South Carolina. Instead, years of delays and cost overruns resulted in two long-delayed reactors 35 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia — and nothing else.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Q&A

How California Is Fighting the Battery Backlash

A conversation with Dustin Mulvaney of San Jose State University

Dustin Mulvaney.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is a follow up with Dustin Mulvaney, a professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University. As you may recall we spoke with Mulvaney in the immediate aftermath of the Moss Landing battery fire disaster, which occurred near his university’s campus. Mulvaney told us the blaze created a true-blue PR crisis for the energy storage industry in California and predicted it would cause a wave of local moratoria on development. Eight months after our conversation, it’s clear as day how right he was. So I wanted to check back in with him to see how the state’s development landscape looks now and what the future may hold with the Moss Landing dust settled.

Help my readers get a state of play – where are we now in terms of the post-Moss Landing resistance landscape?

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

A Tough Week for Wind Power and Batteries — But a Good One for Solar

The week’s most important fights around renewable energy.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Nantucket, Massachusetts – A federal court for the first time has granted the Trump administration legal permission to rescind permits given to renewable energy projects.

  • This week District Judge Tanya Chutkan – an Obama appointee – ruled that Trump’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has the legal latitude to request the withdrawal of permits previously issued to offshore wind projects. Chutkan found that any “regulatory uncertainty” from rescinding a permit would be an “insubstantial” hardship and not enough to stop the court from approving the government’s desires to reconsider issuing it.
  • The ruling was in a case that the Massachusetts town of Nantucket brought against the SouthCoast offshore wind project; SouthCoast developer Ocean Winds said in statements to media after the decision that it harbors “serious concerns” about the ruling but is staying committed to the project through this new layer of review.
  • But it’s important to understand this will have profound implications for other projects up and down the coastline, because the court challenges against other offshore wind projects bear a resemblance to the SouthCoast litigation. This means that project opponents could reach deals with the federal government to “voluntarily remand” permits, technically sending those documents back to the federal government for reconsideration – only for the approvals to get lost in bureaucratic limbo.
  • What I’m watching for: do opponents of land-based solar and wind projects look at this ruling and decide to go after those facilities next?

2. Harvey County, Kansas – The sleeper election result of 2025 happened in the town of Halstead, Kansas, where voters backed a moratorium on battery storage.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow