Heat waves and dengue fever are the new calling card of summer in Argentina. Alongside them come the drying up of rivers, and floods that ravage its cities. Harsh droughts drive up inflation, while fires spark in the country’s wetlands and forests and rage through its provinces.
In Argentina, as across the world, the exception has become the rule. The increasingly devastating consequences of climate change are already undeniable, and impacts are being felt on the economy, on health and in our daily lives.
In the face of this onslaught, responses are often belated, and it is common to see blame directed at specific factors or actors: floods occur because of poor urban planning, power cuts are explained by companies’ lack of investment, and fires are caused by businesses’ ambition to expand.
While all this is true to some extent, the reality is that it was also true 20 or 30 years ago. The fundamental difference is that the frequency and intensity of the phenomena occurring today are several times greater. Climate change is forcing us to change our approach: we will live in a different, increasingly hostile world, marked by the regular occurrence of previously exceptional events. What separates adversity from tragedy is our ability to adapt and prevent the worst consequences. This is easy to say, but very difficult to do.
Adaptation is the challenge
Why is climate adaptation difficult to promote, even if we accept its relevance?
First, because adaptation to climate change is context-specific: what works in one region, community or economic activity may not be useful in another. For example, many regions in Argentina are facing increasing water scarcity. However, responses should vary according to regional specificities.
In the mountainous region of Cuyo in west-central Argentina, where communities depend on the retreat of Andean glaciers, meltwater storage and management systems are required. In contrast, in the northern Dry Chaco region, characterised by prolonged droughts, strategies such as rainwater harvesting must be prioritised. Nor are needs the same in areas where communities depend on agriculture, where water is essential for production, as in those where its primary use is for human consumption.
Second, adaptation to climate change is primarily about prevention, perhaps the most thankless category of public policy. It is difficult to demonstrate the merit of – and the importance of investing large sums of money in – having prevented something from happening. How can you campaign on tragic events that did not happen? No one celebrates that a fire did not spread during a dry season, or congratulates themselves on the reduced proliferation of mosquitoes in a hot summer.
Thirdly, most adaptation actions require state investment, as the services they provide are public goods that cannot be appropriated by individuals or companies that can generate a business from their implementation. Improving conditions in poor urban neighbourhoods, improving early warning systems, and the strengthening of public health are examples of actions that are necessary to adapt to a more hostile climate, and whose responsibility lies primarily with the state.
What separates adversity from tragedy is our ability to adapt and prevent the worst consequences
Finally, these measures often generate local rather than global benefits, which reduces international pressure for their implementation and makes it difficult for them to receive the same level of priority as mitigation actions.
From defensive to offensive
However, it is not all difficulties on the horizon. Creating resilient environments can be an opportunity not only to address climate change and its consequences, but also to re-imagine more liveable, people-friendly spaces where community ties and areas of cooperation are strengthened. These changes can lay the foundation for more inclusive and cohesive societies, able to thrive even in the face of climate adversity.
Examples of good adaptation are many – and most are yet to be created.
In cities, the growth of green spaces, such as parks and green corridors, and even the restoration of waterways, coastal areas and wetlands, not only help absorb rainwater and mitigate the urban heat island effect, but also multiply environments for social interactions and community enjoyment.
Improving sustainable transport with quality public services, pedestrian networks and tree-lined cycleways improves air quality, reduces heat and noise, and encourages healthier mobility habits.
Initiatives such as community gardens in schools and public spaces contribute to food security and reconnection with nature, and foster bonds of cooperation and belonging among citizens.
In rural areas, the restoration of degraded ecosystems contributes to biodiversity conservation and improves livestock and agricultural productivity by reducing soil erosion.
And we are not starting from scratch: since the 2015 signing of the Paris Agreement, Argentina’s adaptation agenda has progressed significantly, strengthening state capacities and gaining institutional relevance. Specialised technical teams were consolidated by the Argentinean national state; the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Law was passed, and the National Climate Change Cabinet (GNCC) was created, which makes the treatment of the issue cross-cutting within the state. Since 2022, Argentina has had a National Adaptation Plan, drawn up jointly by the national government and subnational representatives, with diagnoses of threats, risk analysis and adaptation targets for 2030.
The agenda is also advancing at the subnational level: more and more municipalities and provinces have climate change response plans; a Green Alliance was formed, bringing together provinces that seek to support and strengthen environmental policy; and organisations have been established, such as the Argentine Network of Municipalities facing Climate Change, made up of 206 jurisdictions, working to promote the design and implementation of climate planning at the local level.
But the challenges are growing, and there is denialism in the air. Climate change is advancing; there is no time to waste. The national government has shown itself to be reactionary on the climate agenda: since taking power in 2023, it has downgraded the environmental authority from a ministry to an under-secretariat, withdrawn Argentina from international negotiations at the COP29 summit, destroyed state capacities, and is considering withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
But this does not mean that the agenda is lost. It is time for the rest of society – from local governments and social organisations to trade unions and businesses – to take a leading role in building a necessary and desirable future.
Ana Julia Aneise and Elisabeth Möhle are the authors of Argentina in the face of climate change: A new development model for a world in transition, an analysis by the think tank Fundar in Argentina.
