As a mother of eight, Ebada Yusuf had now lost her third child. Sitting next to the body of her four-year-old son, Salman Mohamed – who died that morning from severe malnutrition and measles in Baidoa, Somalia – Yusuf questioned the reason behind the conditions of their suffering.
In May of 2021, Africa suffered from the most severe drought the continent had faced in over four decades. Due to extensive climate change, the Middle East, South America, and Africa felt the surges in droughts, temperatures, and hunger. As environmental degradation continues to jeopardize the lives of millions in underrepresented communities, it becomes ever more timely to address today’s quintessential question: why does global climate finance predominantly flow toward mitigation rather than adaptation, even as millions suffer immediate and irreversible damage?
The Disproportionate Balance Between Mitigation and Adaptation
Within contemporary society, the adoption of mitigation policies to reduce future emissions is heavily prioritized. By leveraging renewable energy subsidies, electric vehicle (EV) tax credits, and carbon markets, the international community anticipates curbing current rates of environmental degradation. Alternatively, adaptation, another form of population protection, focuses on adapting modern societies and infrastructure to withstand modern climate impacts. These strategies – sea wall erection, irrigation improvements, disaster relief system fundraising, etc. – are set in order to protect existing communities from current and preconceived future challenges.
Nonetheless, our global community has invested 90 percent of all climate finance toward supporting mitigation, leaving only a mere 10 percent to support adaptation. This stark imbalance presents not only inequity to underrepresented communities, but it also endangers them. Ergo, while billions in subsidies are directed toward solar farms and EVs, the financial backing toward adaptation remains chronically underfunded. Despite predictive models concluding that developing countries will need $215 billion to $387 billion annually to sufficiently support adaptation plans, the current flows cover less than a quarter of this need.
Why Mitigation Dominates
Current political and industrial incentives fuel the demand for mitigation projects. From wind farms to green bonds, “photo-friendly” is contextualized as tangible investments, offering predictable investor returns and serving as an eco-conscious marketing label.
Conversely, adaptation does not possess a marketable return on investment. While a cyclone early-warning system or a drought-resistant seed project could potentially save lives, it fails to be reflected via bond values or to yield investor profits. The question of responsibility also surfaces with adaptation finance, as these projects require significant funding. Liability of climate change largely falls to wealthy, large-emitting countries, and therefore, the responsibility for that large-scale funding. Pressure to compensate these vulnerable states exacerbates the strain from adoption, framing climate change as a “future emissions problem” rather than a present justice crisis.
Human Consequences of Underfunding Adaptation
The active decision to underfund adoption efforts has translated into the loss of life. Despite the failure of climate mitigation strategies to prevent Somalia’s 2021 droughts, which ended the lives of over 43,000 individuals (half of them children), and Pakistan’s 2022 floods, which inflicted $30 billion in damages, international pledges for adaptation continue to fall short. More recently, small island states face the existential threat of rising seas, foreshadowing the displacement of entire communities. Despite nations, like Nauru, already facing displacement, they have received minimal levels of adaptive support.
Though these regions are least responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases, they suffer the steepest consequences. Compared to Europe and North America, which respectively produced 7 and 15 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per person, Africa averaged less than 1 tonne. Yet, the financial allocations do not reflect these proportions, with Sub-Saharan Africa receiving only about 20 percent of global adaptation funding in 2021 to 2022, despite its disproportionate climate burden and relative inability to self-fund climate responses. Under Rawl’s “veil of ignorance” – the assumption that no one knows what race, class, age, or status they would occupy in a decision-making capacity – policymakers would corroborate the need to support these underrepresented populations rather than retain existing frameworks.
Prior Adaptation Success
Despite arguments by politicians and business leaders that adaptation models would be improperly incorporated, positive precedent exists for success in areas where adaptation has been adequately funded. In Kenya, community-based irrigation cooperatives have strengthened food security in arid regions. Investments in cyclone warning systems for Bangladesh have reduced the death toll from storms by over 100 times since the 1970s. Ethiopian reforestation efforts and soil management programs have slowed desertification and boosted local climate resilience. Adoption does not lack a track of success; rather, it suffers from the disinterest of myopically revenue-driven giants.
Political Feasibility
While mitigation advocates – in the form of wealthy nations avoiding binding commitments and investors relying on mitigation-oriented markets – determine such reforms as politically unrealistic, infrastructure is already in place. Article 9 of the Paris Agreement directly obligates developed countries to assist vulnerable states in times of environmental struggle. Pairing this value with the Loss and Damage Fund established during COP27, the direction toward shared liability is enforceable and scalable.
Furthermore, youth movements and NGOs are increasingly framing adaptation as a moral imperative. As pressure increases, ignoring civilian calls for adaptation finance will soon carry a higher reputational cost than fulfilling them.
Future Directionality
If neglect toward adaptation finance continues, global climate governance will inevitably metamorphose into nothing more than a hollow promise. While mitigation is essential, without a critical shift, millions of lives will continue to be lost from droughts, floods, and hunger – humanitarian crises that could otherwise be avoided. The stories of Yusuf in Somalia, families in Pakistan, and islanders facing displacement serve as warnings to the preconceived notion of tragedy, as the climate crisis is relevant to both future emissions and present suffering. The world must take a dual stance on cutting emissions, where adaptation and mitigation stand as equals in the realm of climate policy.
Featured Image Source: National Geographic
