6.3 Climate change—mitigation and adaptation

Because emissions cross borders, effective climate action needs shared goals, reporting, finance and implementation while states retain sovereignty.

Treaties and negotiations coordinate contributions; sanctions or border measures may reduce free-riding but raise equity and sovereignty questions. Separate scientific evidence from political agreement.

A national emissions cut can reduce global forcing, but verification and finance determine whether other states trust and join the effort.

Others’ emissions and land decisions still affect the shared atmosphere; cooperation addresses spillovers.

Global cooperation does not erase national responsibility or justify ignoring unequal capacity.

Decarbonization reduces or ends CO2-emitting energy use and replaces it with renewable energy. Carbon neutrality or net zero balances any remaining emissions with removals inside a stated boundary.

Prioritize absolute cuts through efficiency, electrification, renewable substitution and demand change. Then test residual removals for permanence, leakage, scope, timing and offset dependence.

A company cuts 80 tonnes but emits 20; it needs 20 tonnes of durable verified removal for net zero under the stated boundary.

States set different target dates, so compare boundary, interim gross reductions, renewable replacement and the credibility of residual removals.

Net zero is a balance condition; it does not license unlimited ongoing emissions.

Mitigation can change the warming process, reduce greenhouse-gas production, or remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Replacing coal with renewable electricity reduces a source; restoring forest removes and stores carbon but that store can be reversed by fire or clearance.

Prefer source reduction where feasible, then evaluate complementary process changes and removals without double counting.

A mitigation label does not prove net benefit; apply a complete lifecycle, permanence and equity boundary.

Adaptation reduces adverse effects or captures benefits by changing exposure, vulnerability or infrastructure for a specific climate hazard.

A seawall may protect one district but increase erosion nearby; zoning or movable infrastructure may reduce exposure instead, while desalination can improve water security but add energy and brine impacts.

Match at least two options from each category to hazard, people, timescale, finance and possible maladaptation.

Adaptation is not a universal technology list; a measure can shift risk or lock in future vulnerability.

An adaptation plan cycles through risk assessment, priority setting, implementation, monitoring and revision across individual, community and national scales.

National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) let vulnerable low-income countries identify urgent local priorities and seek support through the UN development process.

Bangladesh's NAPA identifies coastal embankments and flood shelters for sea-level and flood risk, plus improved irrigation and drought-resistant crops if monsoon rains fail.

A plan is successful only if financed actions reduce risk equitably; monitor access and outcomes, then revise priorities as climate and society change.

A NAPA or local plan is a decision process, not proof that adaptation has succeeded.