There has been a long-running debate over whether we should shift towards adaptating to climate change rather than investing money in tackling it, as it may cost a fortune. In my perspective, I largely believe that prevention should remain priority, although adaptation is also needed.
The most compelling reason to prioritise the prevention is that some damage cannot be adapted to. Many experts in this field state that this phenomenon is not reversible.Therefore, it would have been more sensible to spend money on adaptation instead of reining the issue. Nevertheless, inaction can backfire, and in the long run might prove us costly. To put it simple, there are bunch of islands that are on the brink of being swallowed by thawing permafrost as well as large continents such as America or particularly its coastal cities might suffer enormously as damaged crops and ecosystems can lead to reccession.Adaptation cannot eradicate aforementioned consequences of the climate change; therefore, curbing is essential.
Yet, adaptive measures are more of a supplement to mitigation. It is in no way to deny that mitigation places a heavy burden on less developed countries. Some countries consider that adaptation projects appear to be more viable and feasible based on their economic state, which puts a strain on investment in researches or icentives concerning climate change. A case in point is Sub-Saharan Africa where national budget cannot go beyond the most essential needs such as healthcare and electricity. Farmers in parts of Africa are already coping with unpredictable weathern by planting drought-resistant crops and adjusting their planting seasons. Indeed, it is often far more affordable than large-scale mitigation; Thus, this makes adaptation more realistic approach for poorer countries.
To conclude, there is no best solution to effectively combat the global warming, with usage of existing approaches in tandem can, at the very least, lessen the severity of the damage, though.