When we have managed to change the course of history with Climate Change, how do we change the course of it now?

Lavanya Pawar
Sep 7, 2018 · 5 min read
source: Ryan Prior, Iqbal Athas and Euan McKirdy, CNN, cnn.com

Whatever is left of the debate around whether or not climate change is happening stems from the uncertainties in the way that scientists predict future global temperatures. However, these uncertainties have largely been misconstrued. In large consensus, scientists believe that global temperatures have gotten warmer and would continue to do so given the level of greenhouse gases(GHGs) that have been released into the atmosphere as a direct result of human activities.

The point(or points) where they largely tend to disagree on, or better still, the climate prediction models tend to disagree on is the degree of increase in temperatures and the impacts that this could have on the local climate of various regions of the world. These uncertainties could most simply be explained to be resulting from an inherent trait of nature — being unpredictable and full of uncertainties. Even after large strides in scientific discovery, nature has still managed to remain mystical.

Ironically, what is also very much unpredictable is the humankind and the concoctions of its minds. It could be argued that humans are after all a part of nature and hence, the shared trait. The point whether this particular argument makes sense to this debate or not, itself could ultimately define the course of human history. But for now, we come back to the seemingly more straight-forward subject matter. Since, we, as humans, are responsible for the imbalance in the the equilibrium of GHGs and are also unpredictable on top of it, we cannot determine how much more we would add to this imbalance in the future.

With all of these uncertainties looming over their heads, scientists have still managed to tell us with the most certainty that — as a result of a changing climate, the world is going to experience a drastic change in the time, duration, intensity and frequency of weather and climate-related extreme events(IPCC Special Report). A few examples of such events include floods, droughts, hurricanes and spread of disease among others.

If a miracle happens with respect to world cooperation and humans were to stop GHG emissions completely today, at this very moment — the temperatures are still going to rise and we are going to be hit hard by disasters. Reason being our past sins. It is thus, safe to say that we are certain of the direction our karma is leading us to and we should be ready to deal with it. (this is not to mean that we should not mitigate!) Luckily, for us, nature as well as we, are good at adapting to a certain extent and have a decent measure of resilience.

Is Precaution Better Than Cure?

One human-centric adaptive measure is the Forecast Based Financing(FbF) mechanism. FbF comprises of two simple elements: 1) A specific and predetermined(based on common consensus and research) forecast trigger 2) Standard Operating Protocols(SOPs) related to communication, aid or evacuation plan to reduce and manage risks in case of an impending disaster. The implementation of FbF mechanism entails that in case of a forecast trigger, a certain financial aid would be released by the government, international or disaster management agencies to mitigate the immediate risks posed by the oncoming disaster, instead of waiting for the actual disaster to happen and then sending relief aid.

FbF in action at Peru, source: German Red Cross

The uncertainties of nature play a role here too and present a dilemma — forecasts can be wrong. For example, if a community is evacuated in the event of a flood warning and the flood does not occur, the large sum of money spent in the evacuation would go waste. This does not mean that the aid agencies do not care enough to use precautionary measures. Firstly, most of these agencies suffer from a budget crunch and investing immediately in or saving for a region already bearing the wrath of a disaster may seem like ‘money well spent’. Secondly, they are funded by philanthropes and large corporations who would want to see their money being utilized in tangible problem solving and FbF still seems vague.

In addition, the FbF mechanism sounds very familiar to an age old fable — the boy who cried wolf. Mathematically, every party would be better off economically if the boy cried flood only when and every time the forecast trigger went off. However, being uprooted from your house is not the most pleasant experience and the disaster management agencies run the risk of losing trust among the people they operate with.

Another barrier to this mechanism could also be the willingness of the local government to agree to set-up the mechanism. Most disaster risk management plans especially related to mitigation such as evacuation and aid disbursal cannot be carried-out without the aid of the government because of legislative and resource-related issues. Imagine multiple agencies issuing their own version of forecasts about a flood. With no existent checkpoint for the credibility of these forecasts, this could result in a panic among people and may lead to a disruption in law and order in situations of distress.

Where does the implementation of the FbF mechanism stand then? The onus now falls on the agency providing the financial aid. To get all the stakeholders on the same page, the financial aid agency has to be able to make everyone perceive the risks posed by these disasters in a manner that all agree to take early action and continue to do so even when false triggers happen.

Agencies such as the Red Cross Red Crescent Society are actively leading the implementation of FbF mechanism in disaster prone countries and have been able to overcome such challenges to successfully implement the mechanism in Peru. We as a world have a long way to go in the path of risk management and adapting to climate change. But each drop counts towards the mighty ocean.


About Me

I recently graduated with a Master’s degree in Climate Science and Policy from Columbia University and love to stir my brains for issues related to problem solving and decision-making in the social sector. I am passionate about bringing technology, science and policy together and would love to connect if you share the same passion.

If you are interested to know more about the FbF mechanism and would like to read about a case on the ongoing implementation of FbF in Zambia being initiated by the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, please visit my website: https://www.lavanyapawar.com

Lavanya Pawar

Written by

Master’s in Climate and Society, Columbia University. Working in AgriTech. Passionate about Tech in Social Sector

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade