Emission abatement versus development as strategies to reduce vulnerability to climate change: an application of FUND

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 vulnerability than is emission abatement. The hypothesis is rejected in all cases, except for one important one. In general, investing a dollar in emission reduction reduces impacts further than investing that dollar in general development aid. However, this is not the case for vector-borne infectious diseases (malaria) and for regions where such diseases dominate total climate change impacts (Africa). In this case, more climate-change-induced disease is avoided by stimulating development than by reducing emissions.