The Feds Take On Climate Adaptation

by Daniel Farber

October 20, 2010

On October 14, the White House’s Climate Change Adaptation Task Force released its recommendations to President Obama for how agencies can better prepare the United States to respond to the impacts of climate change.  Once again we are reminded of how important it is to have an Administration that takes climate science seriously.

According to the scientists, even if we curb emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise for decades, bringing along with them rising seas, more heat waves, more severe flooding, and more serious droughts. The Task Force’s report is a solid step forward in preparing the U.S. to deal with the challenges of climate change. There are five key recommendations.

1. Mainstream adaptation as a standard part of agency planning. Agency adaptation plans should prioritize the most vulnerable people, places, and infrastructure. The plans should utilize ecosystem based approaches.  Getting agencies to prepare these plans may be hard enough, but getting them to implement the plans is the crucial step.

2. Ensure that scientific information about the impacts of climate change is easily accessible.  Without solid scientific information, public and private sector decision-makers cannot build adaptive capacity into their plans and activities. This effort would build on the U.S. Geologic Survey and its quadrennial National Climate Assessment. Serious efforts need to be made if this information is going to be accessible to and understandable by the public at large.

3. Address climate impacts that cut across agency jurisdictions and missions. Unfortunately, this is the case for many of the main impacts, such as those that threaten water resources, public health, oceans and coasts, and communities. In my view, getting multiple agencies (often both state and federal) to work together is one of the toughest challenges of adaptation – as a political scientist once said, teaching agencies to cooperate is like teaching elephants to dance. Some important arenas for agency determination are to improve water-use efficiency, strengthen public health systems, and develop an open-source risk assessment model. A lot of work needs to be done. For instance, current data sets for health, demography, geography, and climate are incompatible, and need to be integrated. This is probably a lot harder than it sounds.

4. Support international adaptation. The report calls for leveraging federal resources to help developing countries reduce their vulnerability to climate change. One interesting recommendation is to enhance collaboration on adaptation among national security agencies. In addition, USAID issued a guidance document on integrating adaptation into foreign assistance programs. The report also observes that “there are significant opportunities to work with the financial services sector to spur further innovation and development of international adaptation financing and risk management strategies, including micro-insurance products.” One virtue of the report is its awareness of the potentially important role that the private sector can play in adaptation.

5. Support adaptation efforts by state, local, and tribal officials. As the report recognizes, much of the adaptation effort will be locally driven, with the federal government playing a supporting role.  Developing metrics to evaluate adaptation efforts is one important step. So is providing technical support for government units across the country.

The Task Force’s Report is not an adaptation plan – it’s a plan of how to begin adaptation planning. But that’s a crucial first step.

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us ( and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Daniel Farber

Daniel A. Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law, Director of the California Center for Environmental Law and Policy, and Chair, Energy & Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.

Trump, EPA, and the Anti-Regulatory State

Farber | Jan 25, 2018 | Environmental Policy

The Off-Switch Is Inside the Fenceline

Farber | Dec 27, 2017 | Energy

Looking Back on Lucas

Farber | Dec 11, 2017 | Regulatory Policy

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015