Should all countries take both mitigation and adaptation steps to deal with climate change?

How useful would it be if all countries used the same adaptation and mitigation strategies?

Devarshi 9J2

It may not be significantly useful for all countries to employ the same mitigation and adaptation techniques for several reasons, however on the other hand there are also a variety of reasons this could have a significant impact.

One example of utilising the same adaptation techniques not being useful is the construction of reservoirs. The consequences of climate change are varied. With more unpredictable weather patterns, some areas are at higher risk of drought. This is can be combated by building a dam

to prevent freshwater from rivers from flowing out to sea. This adaptation technique however only works for countries that have a river flowing through them. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, or the Maldives, which lack rivers won’t get any benefit from this method.

Moreover, an example of utilising the same mitigation technique not being useful is searching for cleaner energy. HICs, that have been utilising fossil fuels for a long time, have the necessary resources and money to transition to clean energy sources, employing structures such as solar panels. However LICs, or

developing countries, don’t have the necessary funds to move from cheap fossil fuels, to expensive, but more sustainable, cleaner energy sources.

On the other hand, an example of utilising the same adaptation technique being useful is the construction of rip-rap. For countries that aren’t landlocked, and suffer from higher coastal flooding risks, and submersion, due to rising sea levels, an affordable way of protecting their coasts is to use rip-rap. These are loose rocks around coasts, to prevent erosion and reduce submersion, and unlike other methods, aren’t an eyesore. Therefore, this is useful if all countries do it, as it is accessible, and would reduce coastal submersion.

Photo by Scott Rodgerson on Unsplash