Saving lives and protecting infrastructure should be our top priority, with GHG emission mitigation as a secondary concern.

We are heading towards 2030, the first deadline to halve our GHG emissions. Aside from adapting to climate disasters, it’s becoming increasingly urgent to equip people from all walks of life to take climate action. This applies both to their personal lives and their professional lives.

The Global North, primarily responsible for 70% of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, is already working quickly to align all its sectors with climate action. This includes both adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Due to its advanced infrastructure, the Global North has already built some climate resilience. However, significant work remains at the mitigation level. The Global North must finance all its mitigation efforts independently, as it bears the primary responsibility for these emissions.

In contrast, the Global South did not emit the same amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as the Global North. However, it is equally obligated to reduce its emissions by half by 2030. To achieve this, the Global South requires significant climate financing from developed countries. While some funding is being received, it is insufficient to meet the needs of both mitigation and adaptation.

The adaptation challenges facing many developing nations, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and South America, are particularly concerning. These countries are highly vulnerable to climate disasters, not just due to the intensity and frequency of such events, but also due to their lack of preparedness. Pakistan serves as a prime example of this vulnerability.

Urban planning in Pakistan has deteriorated significantly over the past three decades, primarily driven by political interests. Mega-development projects, encompassing infrastructure, communication, and community development, have often been undertaken with ulterior motives beyond meeting development targets. This has resulted in projects prioritized for political gain rather than merit, lacking vision and long-term planning. Consequently, hastily executed urban planning has become counterproductive, hindering the country’s development instead of strengthening its network. We frequently encounter complaints regarding projects constructed or installed within the last decade, highlighting the shortcomings of this approach.

It is well-known that Pakistan ranks among the top five most vulnerable countries to climate change globally, despite contributing less than 1% of global GHG emissions. However, most efforts, both governmental and private, prioritize mitigation, as if Pakistan were a major contributor.

Whether it’s an NGO, business or a government department, the primary focus is on promoting options that reduce GHG emissions. This emphasis on mitigation stems from its perceived ease of implementation. Mitigation efforts, such as renewable energy projects, forest establishment or restoration, and the transition to electric vehicles, often do not require extensive technical expertise or a complete overhaul of existing systems.

Similarly, in terms of awareness and advocacy, most civil society organizations heavily focus on mitigation efforts. Adaptation, despite the severe and imminent threat it poses, receives comparatively less attention. It’s important to acknowledge that our per capita carbon emissions are far below the global average. Therefore, the mantra of reducing carbon footprint may not need to be propagated as robustly as the message of building climate resilience at both the macro and micro levels. Beyond the People’s Housing Program for Flood Affectees of Sindh, few adaptation projects are visible across the country. This starkly illustrates the disproportionate focus on mitigation compared to adaptation in our climate efforts.

It’s acknowledged that significant climate adaptation and resilience measures can’t be achieved at the individual level. At the national level, the government bears primary responsibility. This involves direct funding or incentivizing private investment through profitable projects that also enhance the country’s infrastructure to withstand climate challenges. Crucially, civil society and the media play a vital role in advocating for increased government efforts across all sectors to mitigate climate disaster risks. These disasters have disproportionately impacted the marginalized communities in recent times.

The main question is: Who will empower our people to understand that staying safe from climate disasters requires the government to take measures to ensure the safety of their lives and properties? If people, even those who are well-informed, primarily focus on mitigation and criticize the government for not controlling emissions, they may inadvertently be supporting the government’s inaction.

The government uses the lack of climate financing as an excuse to delay the transition to renewable energy. However, this excuse becomes invalid in the face of a climate disaster. If, heaven forbid, a climate disaster devastates any part of our country, the government cannot use the lack of funding as an excuse for its failure to protect its citizens. The government has an unwavering obligation to strengthen all infrastructure to minimize the risk of climate disasters, regardless of the availability of external funding.

The most urgent need is to empower people to discuss adaptation more openly than mitigation. We need to cultivate genuine climate activists in every corner of the country. These individuals should not simply call themselves climate activists; they must truly deserve the title. To achieve this, the government and civil society should launch free training programs. These programs should focus on educating people, particularly youth, on how to engage the government in adaptation projects. They should also learn to ensure that all implemented projects are climate-smart. Otherwise, people will continue to suffer increasingly from climate disasters. Our so-called climate leaders will continue to emphasize mitigating GHG emissions, which are already relatively low.

Saving lives and protecting infrastructure should be our top priority, with GHG emission mitigation as a secondary concern.