The Technologies Climate Scientists Say We'll Need to Survive Global Warming

Hundreds of the world's best scientists have once again affirmed that climate change is occurring, that it's manmade, and that it's going to get a lot worse if we don't rein in our pollution-spewing habits. Now, they're also stressing that a warmer, wetter planet is inevitable, and that we must begin to adapt to a climate-changed globe. That, the scientists say, means embracing certain spate of technologies, from desalination plants to hazard mapping to floating houses.

Much of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report is given over to surveying the impacts of the rapidly increasing surplus of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—how climate change is already threatening crop yields, how it promises to exacerbate conflict and resource shortages, how its making poorer communities even more vulnerable—and how good economic and social policy can help address those problems. It is, after all, a document primarily intended to influence policymaking; it seeks to keep governments informed on how best to respond to this most looming of universal threats.

But the scientists have also included a list of technologies they say we're going to need to adopt, pronto, if we're to thrive in a hotter world with higher sea levels. "Adaptation is already occurring and is becoming embedded in the planning process," the report states. Some notable local examples are New York City's $1 billion flood and storm-resistance program, and the federal government's climate adaptation initiative. "Engineered and technological adaptation options are the most commonly implemented adaptive responses," the IPCC explains.

That's because it's often a lot easier to build flood walls than it is to muster the political will to change zoning regulations or pass a law that puts a price on carbon pollution. So while we consider the technologies the authors are urging us to upgrade, it's important to understand that the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC is a pretty conservative body. It's designed to offer across-the-board advice to policymakers using only the very best, most-vetted, and thoroughly examined science.

The language of these recommendations is fastidiously pored over and relentlessly debated; the technologies included are those agreed upon by hundreds of scientific minds as being the most essential for planetary stability. The authors rarely get too specific, and don't play favorites. For example, when highlighting the need for better energy technology, this is how it's phrased: "Improved energy efficiency and a shift to cleaner energy sources can reduce local emissions of health-damaging climate-altering air pollutants."

There's no reference to wind turbines or solar panels, just a call to transition to "cleaner energy sources." Again, the IPCC is out to improve climate policy, and it mostly cares that CO2 emissions fall; it doesn't directly wade into, say, a debate on wind vs. nuclear vs. natural gas. There's certainly no mention of major, supremely divisive techno-fixes like geo-engineering. This report is all about adaptation, so let's look at the climatologists' preferred survival tech for an increasingly hellish planet. Under the prescriptions listed for Adaptation in the "Structural/Physical" section, here are the "technological options" the world's most respected climate body thinks we'll need to consider most:

• New crop & animal varieties 
• Efficient irrigation 
• Water-saving technologies 
• Conservation agriculture
• Food storage & preservation facilities 
• Hazard mapping & monitoring 
• Early warning systems 
• Building insulation 
• Mechanical & passive cooling

Judging by the choices listed, the scientists believe we're primarily going to need technologies to make our resource use more efficient; to squeeze every drop out of our dwindling water supplies and increasingly stressed crops. About half of the recommended technologies fall into that category, which makes sense: drought and heat waves are on the rise, as are global population trends. Nourishing 10 billion people with rampant dry spells and desertification will be no easy task. So, better water reclamation technology will likely prove important; reverse osmosis processes, for instance, have improved to the point where it can transform wastewater into clean drinking water. It's the stigma of drinking sewage water that needs be removed, mostly, and to scale up adoption.

Food and water will have to be stored longer, too, and science is tackling some interesting new preservation methods that may come in handy—using pressurization to kill harmful bacteria, for one.

But we're also going to need better weather forecasting, as climatic variations become more violent and less traditionally predictable. This is an important ask, as the budget for climate-monitoring weather satellites is currently being slashed in the US, which operates many of the crucial instruments. Good data is going to be of the utmost important going forward, so maintaining and improving our meteorological and earth observation satellites should be considered mandatory. Systems of dispensing alerts when climate-fueled storms approach, via SMS, email, or through social networks, will help future societies weather disaster.

To that end, resilient, efficient buildings, especially those that are easier and more efficient to cool in ever-hotter summers, are also a must. Hence the scientists' muted call for 'passive' buildings like this one:

Perhaps most controversial is the inclusion of "new crop & animal varieties," as some will interpret that as a call for genetically engineered foods. GMO companies say they've successfully created drought-resistant crops, but skeptics are doubtful.

It's also interesting to note that references to some of the more specific technologies that many scientists wanted included—like desalination, for instance—were cut right before the final document went to press. Desalination was recommended in the approved draft made available just yesterday, but ultimately absent in the final draft issued today. That should give you an idea of how rigorously debated and quarreled over each recommended prescription truly is—desalination was clearly at one point considered an important water-saving technology, but perhaps proved too controversial to be listed by name in the end (likely because the process sucks down a lot of energy).

There's also a section for 'Engineered and Built Environment' fixes, which is also largely focused on technological adjustments. Here, the scientists say we'll need more of the following:

• Sea walls & coastal protection structures
• Flood levees
• Water storage 
• Improved drainage
• Flood & cyclone shelters 
• Storm & wastewater management 
• Transport & road infrastructure improvements 
• Floating houses
• Power plant & electricity grid adjustments

As hurricanes become more intense and floods more frequent, we'll need infrastructure that deals with both. More and better walls, drainage systems, shelters, water management, roads, even homes will prove crucial to facing the growing threat of nastier storms. The grid will have to be strengthened and made smarter (i.e., more distributed and adept at redirecting electrical flows), lest a single fallen branch on power lines knock out the lights for an entire region.

The most important directive is providing enough access to all this technology in the first place. The IPCC rightly notes that improving "access to technology and information" will be instrumental in making societies less vulnerable. It's the poorer nations that stand to suffer most from the changing climate, as many don't have the necessary resources to establish the above improvements. As it stands, only rich nations and individuals are in a position to benefit from such expensive tech.

That's why the report calls more for education improvements, economic diversification, aid packages, and other policies designed to blunt the impact of climate change through less high-tech means; climatologists and governments alike are aware that we're simply not going to be able to hack our way out of this mess.