Tools
Tools
Tol, Richard S J (2005) Emission abatement versus development as strategies to reduce vulnerability to climate change: An application of FUND. Environment and Development Economics, 10 (5). pp. 615-629. ISSN 1355-770X
Full text not available from this repository.Abstract
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | cite |
| Schools and Departments: | School of Business, Management and Economics > Economics |
| Subjects: | G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences > GE170 Environmental policy H Social Sciences > HB Economic theory. Demography |
| Related URLs: | |
| Depositing User: | Richard Tol |
| Date Deposited: | 19 Apr 2012 12:41 |
| Last Modified: | 19 Apr 2012 12:41 |
| URI: | http://srodev.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/38346 |