The Silent Killer: Climate Change and the Health Impacts of Extreme Heat

Climate Council - Elizabeth Hanna  |  Lesley Hughes

More needs to be done to prepare Australia's health and community sectors to cope with the pressures from more frequent and severe heatwaves, our new report has found.
The Silent Killer: Climate Change and the Health Impacts of Extreme Heat found that although many states have taken significant steps to upgrade their heat and health warning systems since the deadly heatwaves of 2009, strategies vary considerably from state to state and focus primarily on reactive rather than long-term planning.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

KEY FINDINGS

1. Climate change is a serious health threat for many Australians.

• Heatwaves are a silent killer. Major heatwaves have caused more deaths since 1890 than bushfires, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and severe storms combined.
• Climate change is driving longer, hotter and more intense heatwaves in Australia. Since 1960, the number of record hot days in Australia has doubled and heatwaves have become longer, hotter and more intense.
• Australia's mortality data indicate that over the past four decades there has been a steady increase in the number of deaths in summer, compared to those in winter suggesting that climate change may already be affecting mortality rates.

2. As extreme heat events worsen, the risk of adverse human health impacts is increasing.

• Without substantial action to tackle climate change and cope with a more extreme climate, heatwaves could cause hundreds of additional deaths annually in Australia by 2050.
• Australia must take urgent steps to improve the preparedness of the health sector and the long-term resilience of communities to minimise the impacts of worsening extreme heat.

3. Heatwaves can put intense pressure on health services.

• Extreme heat increases the risk of heat illness and can also exacerbate pre-existing illnesses such as heart and kidney conditions. Children, the elderly, the disabled and outdoor workers are among those most at risk.
• Heatwaves have been shown to dramatically affect patient presentations. During the heatwave in southeastAustralia in January/February 2009, emergency call-outs jumped by 46%; cases involving heat-related illness jumped 34-fold; and cardiac arrests almost tripled in Victoria. In total, 374 excess deaths were recorded, a 62% increase on the previous year.

4. While the health sector has made significant steps in improving resilience to heatwave events, more needs to be done.

• Several states now have comprehensive heat and health plans and a number have adopted early warning systems, but strategies vary considerably among jurisdictions, with some less prepared than others.
• Approaches also focus primarily on immediate reactive capacity, rather than incorporating exposure reduction strategies to build the long-term resilience of communities to cope with worsening heat.
• Adopting national standards or requirements for heatwave response plans would be one approach for further addressing these challenges.

5. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and deeply is the best way to protect Australians from worsening extreme heat events.

• Limiting heatwaves requires urgent and deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.
• Importantly there must be a rapid transition from fossil fuel based energy systems to renewable energy.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

Links

• Is the Zika outbreak linked to climate change?
• All the top climate scientists in the world have something to tell you

3,000-Year Sea Level Study Called A Major Advance

NASA - Pat Brennan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

This first-of-its-kind study shows that sea level is rising "like gangbusters."

A wave breaks on a Hawaiian beach. Sea levels driven higher by global climate change account for two thirds of coastal flooding days in the United States since 1950, a new analysis shows. Image credit: Michele Reynolds, USGS

A newly published analysis of the sea level record spanning three millennia represents a major leap forward in climate science, says Dr. Josh Willis, an ocean, ice and climate researcher at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory who was not involved in the study.

..the rate of globally-averaged sea level (GSL) rise during the 20^th century was significantly higher than at any time in the past 2,800 years.

The first-of-its-kind study, published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Feb. 22, applied a sophisticated statistical analysis to local relative sea-level reconstructions from around the globe. Using published proxy measurements for 24 locations that relied mainly on marine organisms, the study's authors found that the rate of globally-averaged sea level (GSL) rise during the 20^th century was significantly higher than at any time in the past 2,800 years. The researchers also found that if human influence on climate were removed from the record, global sea level either would have risen far more slowly or even fallen slightly.
"With this record we can definitively say that modern sea level rise is caused by global warming," said Willis, project scientist for the recently launched Jason-3 satellite that measures sea-surface height. "That's something we kind of already knew, but this paper puts the nail in the coffin."
Willis also praised a second analysis by a research group, Climate Central, released the same day and based on the first study's findings. It ascribes two thirds of coastal flooding in the United States since 1950 to human-caused sea level rise.
"A 100-year flood in San Francisco now happens every 10 years," Willis said. "That is global warming, and that is undeniable."
The analysis that made these conclusions possible was based on extremely accurate records of regional sea level changes. Many of the published studies the authors drew from included coastal marine organisms that live only in a narrow range of tidal elevations; their presence is a reliable indicator of specific sea-surface heights.
"There are lots of records that go back thousands of years," Willis said. "But usually you don't have as good an accuracy as these guys got."
The research team that performed the analysis, led by Robert E. Kopp of Rutgers University, supplemented their global database of regional relative sea-level reconstructions with 66 tide gauge records, one going as far back as 1700. The authors found that GSL barely rose  (0.1 ± 0.1 millimeters per year, essentially zero) between 0–700 CE, was nearly stable between 700 and 1000, and fell by 0.2 ± 0.2 millimeters per year between 1000–1400 CE, a period of global air cooling by ∼0.2 °C. They noted a strong acceleration that began in the 19th century and yielded a 20th century rise of 13.8±1.5 centimeters, which is faster than during any of the previous 27 centuries. Prompted by the observed correlation between GSL and air temperatures, the authors also used a semi-empirical model (a simple relationship between GSL and global air temperature) calibrated against the GSL reconstruction, which shows that in the absence of anthropogenic warming, it is extremely likely that 20th century GSL would have risen by less than 51% of the observed 13.8±1.5 centimeters.
The study further used semi-empirical modeling to project sea level rise by the end of the 21^st century under a variety of greenhouse-gas emission scenarios. And the authors' findings—52 to 131 centimeters of sea level rise on the high end, 24 to 61 centimeters if emissions are drastically reduced—were closer to the conclusions reached in the most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change than to the results from previously published semi-empirical projections.
"The short answer is that since the time of Christ, there is not much going on until the Industrial Revolution," Willis said. "And now, sea level is rising like gangbusters."

Links

• Past warming linked to rising sea level
• Briefing: a new era of sea level research
• Study: Rising seas slowed by increasing water on land

Natural Disasters Costing Australia 50% More Than Estimated

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

Reports find increases in family violence and mental health problems due to stress of natural disasters outweighs cost of rebuilding infrastructure

The social devastation resulting from bushfires, flooding and earthquakes can last for years, if not decades, reports have shown. Photograph: Joe Castro/AAP

The cost of natural disasters in Australia is 50% more than previously estimated– $9bn in 2015 – and is set to increase to $33bn by 2050 even ignoring the effect of climate change, according to two reports commissioned by the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities.
The reports included the first analysis of the economic costs of social impacts of natural disasters, and concluded they cost the economy more than tangible impacts like damage to property.
Among the tangible costs, the biggest occurred when critical infrastructure was damaged. Despite this, there was no formal requirement to consider resilience when making decisions about building infrastructure.
The reports said more investment was needed at times other than in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, with funding also required for community and infrastructure resilience, as well as longer-term social care.
The reports follow others by the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia which also recommended more money be spent on resilience than recovery, which the government has been reluctant to implement.
"The reports show the long-term cost of the social impact of natural disasters on our communities and economy, and the benefits of embedding resilience into planning decisions for critical infrastructure," said the managing director and CEO of insurer IAG, Peter Harmer, on behalf of the Roundtable.
"We need to do more to help our communities prepare for and recover from disasters. Sadly the devastation of bushfires, flood and earthquakes on our communities can last for years, if not decades."
One of the two Deloitte Access Economics reports examined the social impacts of disasters and focused on three case studies: the 1989 Newcastle earthquake, 2009 Black Saturday bushfires and the 2011-12 Queensland floods.
In each case it found the cost of social impacts, such as increases in family violence and mental health problems due to stress, outweighed the economic impacts of having to rebuild infrastructure. However, some social costs could not be measured, which meant that the true cost was more than the study found.
Looking at the 2011-12 Queensland floods, some of the social costs it identified included:

• The exacerbation of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and the development of stroke resulting from the floods was about $430m.
• Research suggesting a link between natural disasters, stress and family violence led to an estimate that increases in family violence cost $720m.
• The lifetime cost of mental health issues resulting from the floods was estimated at around $5.9bn.

It also found some of the social impacts might affect women more than men, leading to the suggestion that responses should be gendered too, citing the example of Firefoxes Australia, which provided social support to women following the Black Saturday bushfires.
Noel Clement, Australian Red Cross director of Australian Services, said the costs could be reduced by investing more in community resilience before disasters, as well as on psychological and social services that extended beyond the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
He said any community program that helped neighbours to know each other could help, since they would then be more able to help one another when disaster struck.
"Governments, business and communities need to work together to address the medium and long-term social impacts of natural disasters through further investment and research into community resilience programs," Clement said.
The second report examined the impact of natural disasters on infrastructure and how it could be avoided.
It found that about $450m was spent each year by governments restoring critical infrastructure, a figure that would rise to $17bn by 2050. Despite $1.1tn likely to be spent on critical infrastructure between now and 2050, it said there was no formal requirement to consider resilience to disasters when making decisions about building infrastructure.
It found that government planning processes should include a requirement to consider resiliance. But that was not only the responsibility of governments.
Paul O'Sullivan, chariman of Optus, which is a member of the Roundtable, said Optus spent more than $1bn annually on infrastructure.
"As we have undertaken our own climate change review, it is clear that there is a need for stronger central coordination across government and other infrastructure providers, and an opportunity to embed resilience into government policy and planning activities. The report issues practical guidelines to address this."
The reports warn that they have not included the effects of climate change, which is expected to increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters in Australia.
In May 2015, the Productivity Commission delivered a report into natural disaster funding, finding it was not currently "efficient, equitable or sustainable".
"Governments overinvest in post-disaster reconstruction and underinvest in mitigation that would limit the impact of natural disasters in the first place. As such, natural disaster costs have become a growing, unfunded liability for governments," it said. It recommended mitigation funding be increased by $400m a year, and expressly warned against "cherry-picking" some recommendations from the report, since they formed a cohesive package.
When asked whether the government would be implementing the recommendations, a spokeswoman for the minister for justice, Michael Keenan, said the government did not plan to implement the shifting of funding from disaster recovery to disaster mitigation, which she described as "severe cuts to recovery funding".
"The government is consulting with the states on proposed reforms to disaster funding arrangements, in particular around a new model for funding the restoration of essential public assets."
"As consultations are ongoing, the timing for the release of the government's response is yet to be settled," the spokeswoman said.

Links

• Cyclone Winston: tens of thousands homeless in Fiji a week after storm
• Home and dry? The flood victims who are putting up their own defences
• Call for urgent inquiry into world heritage forest fires in Tasmania
• Cost of property losses from Victorian bushfires is expected to top $40m
• WA will need twice as many firefighters in 2030 to cope with climate change – report

Impact Of Climate Change On Public Health

ScienceDaily

Health consequences of climate change: Doctors urge action to help mitigate risks and prepare for new challenges

Climate change is already having a noticeable impact on the environment and global health. Around the world extreme weather events, increased temperatures, drought, and rising sea levels are all adversely affecting our ability to grow food, access clean water, and work safely outdoors. Soon in some areas, the transformation will be so drastic and devastating that native populations will be displaced and forced to find new homes as environmental refugees. In a review published in the Annals of Global Health, doctors warn of the impending public health crisis brought on by climate change and call for action to help prepare the world for what is ahead.
As we begin to experience an unprecedented shift in temperature, we are starting to see the immense impact climate change will have on people around the world, especially those living in low-income countries. Bearing the brunt of the damage caused by climate change, low-income nations are especially susceptible because their economies often rely solely on agriculture and most do not possess the resources to ease the risks posed by climate events.
Low-income countries contribute just a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases (GHG), yet, they stand to lose the most if something is not done to curb emissions. In 2004, the United States, Canada, and Australia approached 6 metric tons (mt) of GHG per capita, while per-capita GHG emissions in low-income countries was only 0.6 mt overall.
"As global temperature increases, rich countries' economies continue to prosper, but the economic growth of poor countries is seriously impaired," explained co-author Barry S. Levy, MD, MPH, Adjunct Professor, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine. "The consequences for economic growth in poor countries will be substantial if we continue on a 'business-as-usual' path of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations and rapid climate change, with poor countries' mean annual growth rate decreasing from 3.2% to 2.6%."
The adverse health effects of climate change will be broad and will tax public health resources globally. Vector-borne diseases, foodborne and waterborne illnesses, malnutrition, respiratory and allergic disorders, heat-related disorders, collective violence, and mental health problems will all likely increase due to climate change. Already vulnerable populations including the poor, minority groups, women, children, and older people will face the greatest challenges brought on by climate-caused illness. Malaria, Rift Valley fever, tick-borne encephalitis, and West Nile virus disease are spreading due to climate change.
Along with minority populations and poor people, women are more vulnerable to the health consequences of climate change. Co-author investigator Jonathan A. Patz, MD, MPH, Director of the Global Health Institute at the University of Wisconsin--Madison explained, "There are many ways in which climate change disproportionately affects women, including and especially adolescent girls. In low-income countries, women and adolescent girls generally assume primary responsibility for gathering water, food, and fuel for their households. Climate change-induced droughts make this work much more difficult."
Because the challenges presented by climate change disproportionately affect already vulnerable groups, investigators warn that caution must be exercised when trying to manage the effects of climate change. "International organizations and governments at the national, state/provincial, and local levels should ensure that human rights are considered in developing and implementing mitigation and adaptation measures," noted Dr. Levy. "Nongovernmental and humanitarian organizations need to hold governments accountable in protecting and promoting these human rights."
Positive progress on this front emerged last December in Paris from the UN Conference of the Parties (COP21) on climate change. World leaders gathered there agreed to establish a $100 billion fund to pay for both energy development as well as damages already incurred by poorer nations. "The agreement, which included the concept of 'damages,' clearly shows a recognition of the imbalance between industrialized nations that have caused climate change and those countries already bearing the brunt of extreme weather impacts," said Dr. Patz, who attended the Paris meeting.
Now is the time to address these issues and determine proper plans of action. In this issue of Annals of Global Health, "Climate Change, Global Health, and Human Rights," guest editor Holly G. Atkinson, MD, Program Director of Human Rights, Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, explained, "In many places around the globe where upheavals are occurring, public health systems have broken down. As a consequence, for example, we have witnessed the resurgence of polio--an ancient disease almost eradicated in 2012. Despite the evidence, many people remain substantially uninformed about the link between climate change and global health."
Public health problems resulting from climate change continue to increase, and yet, we are slow to react. With the most vulnerable populations among us set to sustain the most damage, this review in the Annals of Global Health urges swift and decisive action to protect poor people, women, children, older people, and other vulnerable populations from the health consequences of climate change now and in the future.
"The global climate crisis threatens most people and their human rights," concluded Dr. Patz. "The adverse consequences of climate change will worsen. Addressing climate change is a health and human rights priority, and action cannot be delayed. Mitigation and adaptation measures must be equitable, respecting, protecting and promoting human rights."

Links

• UK Health Professionals Unite for Stronger Measures to Tackle Climate Change
• How to Engage the Population With Climate Change? Frame It as a Public Health Issue
• How Do We Talk About Climate Change? The Need for Strategic Conversations
• Climate Change Threatens Global Security, Warn Medical and Military Leaders

'Disturbing': CSIRO Units Copping Cuts To 'Wear' Redundancy Costs, Lift Revenue

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Scientists analyse samples in a laboratory on board the CSIRO-run RV Investigator. Photo: Pete Harmsen

The CSIRO divisions to bear the brunt of the planned staffing cuts are being told to increase their revenue from external sources in coming years and count the redundancy costs against those targets.
Fairfax Media can reveal that the Oceans and Atmosphere division, which is slated to lose about one-fifth of its staff, will  be expected to increase total revenue from external sources from about $42 million in 2015-16 to about $44 million by 2019-2020.
The division is home to climate modelling and monitoring teams that are likely to lose about half their 140 staff, a move that has drawn criticism from around the world.

Larry Marshall, CEO of the CSIRO, wants the organisation to be more profitable. Photo: Daniel Munoz

Kenneth Lee, director of the Oceans and Atmosphere division, told staff on Monday that he hoped "corporate" would pay for at least some of the redundancies.

"I was talking to Hazel Bennett [CSIRO's chief finance officer], but she said that the organisation does not have the money to pay for all redundancies," Dr Lee told staff, according to a transcript of the briefing obtained by Fairfax Media.  "So all the business units will have wear some of it."
Insiders have told Fairfax Media that the cost of the redundancies for the Oceans and Atmosphere division is about $13 million, with more than two-thirds of the sum to be carried by the division.
"It's very disturbing," Michael Borgas, president of CSIRO's Staff Association, said. "It means for those who are carrying on [after the cuts] that you're got a big debt to start with, and that's pretty dispiriting."

More to come?
Labor and the Greens said the strategy employed by CSIRO points to further job cuts when the depleted units failed to deliver rising returns.
"What is becoming clear is that the CSIRO management is trying to use business principles to disrupt the science-based priorities of the CSIRO," Shadow Industry Minister Kim Carr said.
"CSIRO divisions will be hit even harder if they are forced to fund the redundancies of scientists and researchers out of their own budgets," Senator Carr said. "This will just be a double whack for CSIRO research."    
Greens Senator Larissa Waters said the drive to make shrinking staff lift earnings would shift the onus of research on to shorter term projects that may be less critical for the nation.
"The blinkered focus on profit making is dangerous and unscientific," the deputy Greens leader said.
"Asking our world-class climate scientists to do even more work for corporations, like the oil and gas industry, raises serious questions about the CSIRO's institutional integrity,"  Senator Waters said, referring to plans by the organisation to help firms to improve their "social licence".

'Detailed' planning
The CSIRO declined to comment on how the redundancies would be funded nor how divisions could expand the earnings they make from customers with fewer staff.
"We are now conducting our detailed budget planning covering all revenue and expenditure and taking into account the recent decisions, as we routinely do at this time of the budget cycle," a spokesman said.
A spokesman for Science Minister Christopher Pyne said the CSIRO was an independent statutory agency. The plan to recover the 350 job losses – including also from the Land and Water, Data61 and manufacturing divisions -  by an equal number of new hires in other more promising sectors, he said.
A senior researcher in the Land and Water division, which also faces the loss of 100 full-time positions, said the lack of funds to pay for redundancies "is a massive blow to the viability of Oceans and Atmosphere and Land & Water".
"Land and Water came up $4 million short on external earnings targets last year," the scientist said. "If Corporate imposes this bill as well as external earnings targets, then there will be another round of massive staff cuts next financial year."

Links

1. Greenhouse gas emissions from Australia's biggest polluters on the rise
2. A sweltering summer, a hot March - now get set for a wet Autumn
3. Bereaved beagle owner warns of dangers of sugar alternative xylitol
4. El Nino: The weather of 2015 captured in one image

Australia Risks Missing Clean Power Goals, With Households To Pick Up The Bill

Fairfax - Tom Arup

Households will ultimately have to pay if interim renewable energy targets are missed. Photo: Getty Images

Australia risks not hitting its 2020 renewable energy target with analysts now forecasting that interim goals will be missed – a situation that will trigger penalties that households will have to pay.
Many in the energy industry agree that this year will be "make or break" for achieving the end-of-decade target, which aims to deliver about 23 per cent of Australia's electricity from clean technologies such as wind and solar.
"This year is critical" said Kane Thornton, who heads the Clean Energy Council.
"We are expecting all the major players will start taking action, meaning projects can move quickly, will reach financial close and construction will get under way."
"But if that hasn't happened by the end of the year then clearly there will be a problem."
While it appears a two-year investment freeze on new large-scale renewables in Australia is thawing, analysts say it is unlikely enough commitments will come through this year to meet annual interim renewable energy goals between now and 2020.
If an annual shortfall occurs major energy players are required to pay penalties to the federal government, with the costs being passed on to consumers.
Advisory firm Green Energy Markets calculates falling short of the target would cost the average household $5 in Victoria and $8 in NSW on their quarterly power bill. That is on top of the otherwise expected costs of meeting the renewable energy goal.
Analysts and traders in clean energy certificates, which underpin the target scheme and provide a financial boost for renewables projects, are forecasting that situation will arise in 2018, and even as early as next year.
Green Energy Markets says commitments for 4400 megawatts worth of large-scale renewable energy projects is needed this year to avoid penalties in 2018. They forecast government-backed projects will deliver 1100 megawatts, with an additional amount expected from other sources.
Elsewhere analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance calculate that 3500 megawatts in commitments are needed this year to avoid future annual shortfalls. They forecast up to 2000 megawatts worth will be made.
Mr Thornton said renewable energy developers had well over the 6,000 megawatts of projects ready to be deployed.
"In order for us to meet the [2020] target something has to change, " said Marco Stella, a senior broker at another firm, TFS Green Australia.
"Either people have to start committing to projects or financiers and project proponents need to be prepared to take on more risk."
"It is an enormous amount of generation that still has to be built. And because we have been doing nothing for years the requirements are getting larger and larger."
Matthew Warren, chief executive of the Australian Energy Council, which represents coal and gas power plant owners and retailers, said multiple uncertainties still hung over renewable energy investments, including commercial, government, demand and technology issues.
"Basically this is a financing problem. There is still insufficient certainty around the nature of those investments," Mr Warren said.
"But that can evolve a lot in 12 months. It will just depend on whether we can find ways for that risk to be managed and what do we do if we can't."
Some continue to blame the sluggish investment on the uncertainty created by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott's ferocious push across 2014 and 2015 to cut the renewable energy target. Last year the government and Labor struck a deal to lower the target.
In recent times there have been some positive signs of movement.. This month energy giant AGL launched an investment fund aimed at delivering 1000 megawatts worth of renewable energy, while Origin Energy head Grant King was quoted saying his company was preparing to back new projects.
Kobad Bhavnagri ​, head of Australia for Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said these were signs of intent from the big energy players. He added hitting the penalty in one year – while not the best outcome for consumers – did not mean the target was not working, and pointed out the scheme included retrospective make good provisions.
"In the short-term the capacity and investments may be short of what is required to meet the annual targets, but if progress is being made to the larger target then the scheme is succeeding," Mr Bhavnagri said.
"If it is not met in 2020, but we are getting close and it is met in 2021 and 2022, the target has still worked."
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said that 2020 renewable energy target was fixed and had the rock solid support of the government.
He pointed to the recent AGL announcement as an indication the market was responding to the revised target and the "certainty created".
"We expect significant further announcements in the coming six months," Mr Hunt said.

Links

Greenhouse gas emissions from Australia's biggest polluters on the rise

A sweltering summer, a hot March - now get set for a wet Autumn

'Disturbing': CSIRO units copping cuts to 'wear' redundancy costs, lift revenue

'Perverse' science: Greg Hunt gives nod to logging in new red gum national park

Climate Change Adaptation In Global Megacities Protects Wealth – Not People

The Conversation - Lucien Georgeson  |  Mark Maslin 

Mumbai is one of many large cities threatened by climate change, but not adapting fast enough. EPA

Cities across the world are increasingly at risk from climate change. People living in extreme poverty are especially vulnerable, both because global warming will tend to hit developing countries the hardest, and because they have less money to throw at the problem.
We used newly-available data to investigate how cities are responding to climate change and whether resources are being allocated efficiently or fairly. We expected there to be differences in spending between rich and poor. But we did not expect them to be so vast, with New York for instance spending more than £190 (US$260) per person to protect its people and infrastructure from the impact of climate change, while Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa spends less than £5 ($7).
It seems the amount spent on climate adaptation is driven more by the amount of wealth at risk rather than the number of vulnerable people.
Adaptation simply means any actions that anticipate the negative consequences of climate change – to human health, the economy or ecosystems – and attempt to minimise the damage. In big cities this might mean raising sea walls to tackle sea level rise or expanding drains to cope with bigger storm surges.
We need a comprehensive picture of how much is being spent on these adaptation measures across the world. The Millennium Development Goals, despite their shortcomings, have demonstrated that measuring a problem provides an invaluable baseline from which improvements can occur.

Addis Ababa’s preparations for climate change can’t compete with those in richer cities. Laika ac, CC BY-SA

For this study, published in Nature Climate Change, we focused on spending in ten megacities. New adaptation spending figures were gathered and analysed using data triangulation, which draws on many different sources and types of data to arrive at more accurate estimates. Our work on this is part of a wider project on measuring the size of the green economy.
Where ever you look, this “adaptation economy” remains a small part of the overall economy – a maximum of 0.33% of a city’s gross domestic product. Yet there are real disparities between cities. As you might expect, developed cities spend significantly more per capita. After all, most things cost a lot more in the US than in Ethiopia, and new drainage systems, air conditioning and so on are no different.

Cities in richer countries spend more in total and per head (2014-15 data). Paris is an exception due to narrow definitions of its ‘city proper’. Georgeson et al/Nature Comms, Author provided

But this same disparity also applies as a percentage of city GDP. The three rich cities we looked at spend nearly half as much again as the developing cities (around 0.22% of city GDP, compared to 0.15%), even though climate change is a far scarier prospect for low-lying, flood-prone Jakarta or already-hot Addis Ababa than it is for London or Paris.
Of course, cities in poorer countries have greater competing needs for their finances. Things Londoners or Parisians can take for granted such as clean water or basic healthcare are still pressing issues in Lagos or Mumbai.
Yet such disparity still has to end, particularly as between now and 2050 the major growth in urban populations will be in China, India, Indonesia and Nigeria. In these countries we need to think about how to boost cities’ resilience through far more adaptation funding.

Beijing tops the charts for adaptation as a percentage of GDP (2014/15 data). Georgeson et al / Nature Comms, Author provided

It can be done. Just look at Beijing, which stands out because the proportion of its economy devoted to climate adaptation was significantly higher than any other city in the study. Almost half of this was spent on changes to the built environment such as water efficiency retrofitting – a much higher ratio than any other city – with less going towards health or agriculture.
The fact the Chinese capital is taking adaptation seriously is linked to strong central government policies, which encourage cities to face up to climate change. In China, all provinces have a comprehensive adaptation plan and a taskforce to deliver it. When governments offer leadership and policy certainty, things will happen.
Most cities at least show solid growth in adaptation spending over the past five years, beyond their average GDP growth for the period. But adaptation spending was more volatile in Addis Ababa and Lagos, the cities in the study that spent the least in real, proportional and per capita terms, and heavily-dependent on a few specific projects. This should be a cause for concern.
It is clear that insufficient funds are being spent to protect major population centres in developing and emerging economies. Our study is an early warning sign: we must remain focused on protecting people at risk, and not just the “capital”.

Links

• CSIRO boss's failed logic over climate science could waste billions in taxes
• No ribbon to cut: climate change adaptation never ends
• Spending wisely now will make heatwaves less costly later
• Everyone knows climate adaptation is crucial, but beyond that it's pretty hazy