File(s) not publicly available
Emission abatement versus development as strategies to reduce vulnerability to climate change: An application of FUND
Poorer countries are generally believed to be more vulnerable to climate change than richer countries because poorer countries are more exposed and have less adaptive capacity. This suggests that, in principle, there are two ways of reducing vulnerability to climate change: economic growth and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Using a complex climate change impact model, in which development is an important determinant of vulnerability, the hypothesis is tested whether development aid is more effective in reducing impacts than is emission abatement. The hypothesis is barely rejected for Asia but strongly accepted for Latin America and, particularly, Africa. The explanation for the difference is that development (aid) reduces vulnerabilities in some sectors (infectious diseases, water resources, agriculture) but increases vulnerabilities in others (cardiovascular diseases, energy consumption). However, climate change impacts are much higher in Latin America and Africa than in Asia, so that money spent on emission reduction for the sake of avoiding impacts in developing countries is better spent on vulnerability reduction in those countries.
History
Publication status
- Published
Journal
Environment and Development EconomicsISSN
1355-770XPublisher
Cambridge University PressExternal DOI
Issue
5Volume
10Page range
615-629Department affiliated with
- Economics Publications
Notes
citeFull text available
- No
Peer reviewed?
- Yes
Legacy Posted Date
2012-04-19Usage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC