IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Toward a Sustainable and Resilient FutureChapter 8FAQ 8.1 | Why is there not a greater emphasis on technology as the solution to climate extremes?Technology is an essential part of responses to climate extremes, at least partly because technology choices and uses are so often a partof the problem. Enhancing early warning systems is one example where technology can play an important role in disaster risk management.This example also flags the importance of considering ‘hard’ (engineering) and ‘soft’ (social and administrative) technology. Greatadvances have been made in hard technology around hazard identification, and this has saved many lives. Communicating warningsthrough the ‘soft’ technology of institutional reform and communication networks has been less well developed. Both hard and softtechnology systems must be responsive to different cultures, environments, and types of governance. Most fundamentally, it is clear thattechnologies are the product of research and development choices, which reflect particular values, interests, and priorities. The successfultransfer of technology is sensitive to local needs, capacities, and development goals. Technologies can have unintended consequencesthat contribute to maladaptations. For example, some modern agricultural technologies may reduce local biodiversity and constrainfuture adaptation. Technologies only matter if they are both appropriate and accessible. Technology development and use are necessaryfor reducing vulnerabilities to climate extremes, both through mitigation and adaptation, but they need to be the right technologies thatare deployed in the right ways. This calls for greater reflection on the social, economic, and environmental consequences of technologyacross both space and time. In many cases, responses to climate extremes can be improved by addressing social vulnerability, ratherthan focusing exclusively on technological responses.vulnerability to extreme events or ongoing trends. For example, theuse of irrigation has reduced farmer vulnerabilities to low and variableprecipitation patterns. However, when the irrigation water is from anonrenewable source (e.g., the Ogallala-High Plains aquifer system of theUnited States), the foreseeable reduction in future irrigation opportunitieswould mean an increase in vulnerability and the risk of increasing cropfailures (AAG, 2003; Harrington, 2005).Similarly, while large dams could mitigate drought and generateelectricity, well known costs of social and ecological displacement maybe unacceptable (Baghel and Nusser, 2010). Furthermore, unless damsare constructed to accommodate future climate change, they may presentnew risks to society by encouraging a sense of security that ignoresdepartures from historical experience (Wilbanks and Kates, 2010). In theMekong region, dikes, dams, drains, and diversions established for floodprotection have unexpected consequences for risk over the longer term,because they influence risk-taking behavior (Lebel et al., 2009). In theUnited States, past building in floodplain areas downstream from damsthat have now exceeded their design life has become a major concern;tens of thousands of dams are now considered as having high hazardpotential (McCool, 2005; FEMA, 2009; ASCE, 2010).Investments in physical infrastructure cast long shadows through time,because they tend to assume lifetimes of three to four decades orlonger. The gradual modernization of a city’s housing stock, transport, orwater and sanitation infrastructure takes many decades without targetedplanning. If they are maladaptive rather than adaptive, the consequencescan be serious. This suggests a reappraisal of technology that mightpromote more distributed solutions, for example, multiple, smaller damsthat can resolve local as well as more distant needs, or widely spread,local energy production (perhaps utilizing micro-solar, wind and water,or geothermal power) that can reduce exposure to secondary impactsfrom natural disasters when large power generators or power transmissionlines are lost during a natural disaster, or when power plants generatesecondary disasters after being impacted by a natural hazard, as hashappened recently in Japan. The goal of a more distributed and lessmaximizing development vision has been expressed in Thailand’s‘Sufficiency Economy’ approach, where local development is judgedagainst its contribution to local, national, and international wealthgeneration (UNDP, 2007a).Technology choices, availability, and access depend on more thantechnology development alone. Unless the technologies, the skillsrequired to use them, and the institutional approaches appropriate todeploy them are effectively transferred from providers to users(‘technology transfer’), the effects of technology options, howeverpromising, are minimized (see Section 7.4.3). Challenges in puttingscience and technology to use for sustainable development havereceived considerable attention (e.g., Nelson and Winter, 1982; Pateland Pavit, 1995; NRC, 1999; ICSU, 2002; Kristjanson et al., 2009),emphasizing the wide range of contexts that shape both barriers andpotentials. If obstacles related to intellectual property rights can beovercome, however, the growing power of the information technologyrevolution could accelerate technology transfer (linked with localknowledge) in ways that would be very promising (Wilbanks andWilbanks, 2010).8.2.5. Tradeoffs in Decisionmaking:Addressing Multiple Scales and StressorsSustainable development involves finding pathways that achieve avariety of socioeconomic and environmental goals, without sacrificingany one for the sake of the others. As a result, the relationships betweenadaptation, disaster risk management, and sustainability are highlypolitical. Successful reconciliation of multiple goals “lies in answers tosuch questions as who is in control, who sets agendas, who allocatesresources, who mediates disputes, and who sets rules of the game”448