Scientists insist both are needed. “The success of global mitigation efforts is … critical to determine future temperature increases and the magnitude of the global risks,” said Edenhofer. “Adaptation can reduce climate risk and associated harms.”
For example, southern Europe’s droughts will become more frequent and intense the higher global temperatures rise — according to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), more than a third of the region’s population will face water scarcity at 2C of global warming, while 3C doubles this share. Curbing warming limits this risk.
To address the remaining risk, countries can introduce adaptation measures — such as having farmers switch to more drought-resistant crops or managing water use. The worse the warming gets, the greater the danger that regions and economic sectors will no longer be able to adapt.
All the EU has for now is a vague adaptation strategy from 2021. Most EU countries have national adaptation plans or laws with relevant elements, but both the European Environment Agency and the European Court of Auditors have warned that legislation varies wildly across the bloc and that some strategies are based on outdated scientific findings.
Worst-case scenario
That’s not good enough, the advisory board says. Among the five recommendations, the scientists want the EU to develop a coherent vision with “sector-specific adaptation targets, for example for 2030 and 2040,” and to find ways to manage the rising economic costs of climate disasters, for example, through budgetary and insurance mechanisms.
This must be based on a common reference scenario, the scientists say, recommending the EU prepare for a global warming of between 2.8 C and 3.3 C above pre-industrial levels — consistent with projections that “imply around 4C warming for Europe,” Edenhofer said.