PHYSICAL SYSTEMS Flashcards
Evaluate the view that mitigation strategies are more important than adaptation strategies in addressing the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle (20 marks)
Relevant points may include:
AO1
Re-balancing the carbon cycle could be achieved through mitigation
(carbon taxation, renewable switching, energy efficiency,
afforestation, carbon capture and storage). This requires global scale
agreement and national actions both of which have proved to be
problematic.
Adaptation strategies for a changed climate (water conservation and
management, resilient agricultural systems, land-use planning, flood-
risk management, solar radiation management) have different costs
and risks.
Increased temperatures affect evaporation rates and the quantity of
water vapour in the atmosphere with implications for precipitation
patterns, river regimes and water stores.
Threats to ocean health pose threats to human wellbeing, especially in
developing regions that depend on marine resources as a food source
and for tourism and coastal protection.
Forest loss has implications for human wellbeing but there is evidence
that forest stores are being protected and even expanded, especially
in countries at higher levels of development (environmental Kuznets’
curve model).
AO2
The key advantage of mitigation strategies is that they are the only
strategy that offers a long term solution to the risks posed by the
degradation of the carbon cycle. Unless carbon emission can be
stabilised through mitigation strategies, global temperatures are set
to rise by more than the 2C threshold that most scientists agree
initiates uncontrollable positive feedback loops that will magnify all of
the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle.
Crucially mitigation strategies address all of the key risks posed by the
degradation of the carbon cycle such as changes to the hydrological
cycle, ocean health and forest loss and if implemented at a global
scale can address these risks globally. Mitigation strategies are also
crucial to the survival of natural ecosystems that will not be able to
adapt to a changed climate that is more than 2C above pre industrial
levels.
PMT
Furthermore, the short term economic costs of mitigation strategies
have been shown by authors such as Stern to have net positive long
term economic benefits as the strategies should be considered in the
light of the value of ecosystems that they are helping to maintain.
However, mitigation strategies do not address the immediate risks to
the hydrological cycle, the oceans or to the forests posed by the
degradation of the carbon cycle.
Furthermore, it has been proved difficult to implement global
mitigation strategies. Few European countries even met their Kyoto
agreements whilst the latest Paris 2015 agreement is based on each
country setting its own targets which are not binding or enforceable in
international law. The agreement provides no consequences if
countries do not meet their commitments and so the withdrawal of
key signatories such as the US might lead to the collapse of the
agreement reducing the efficacy of the strategy in reducing the risks
posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle.
Although regional and national mitigation strategies such as the EU
Emission Trading Scheme and the UK Carbon Tax have proved to be
more successful in stabilising carbon emissions and they have been
criticised for not changing people’s behaviour and so not offering a
long term solution to the degradation of the carbon cycle.
Many mitigation strategies such as the use of renewables will be
expensive and have ‘upfront costs’ i.e. today’s generation will pay for
the excesses of previous generations energy use and will also have to
pay for future generations well-being and cause so called inter-
generational transfer of costs. Furthermore the use of renewables is
controversial in sensitive areas such as National Parks whilst there are
also other concerns on the viability of providing reliable energy
supplies.
A key advantage of adaptation strategies such as flood protection
and the development of drought resistant crops is that it addresses
the immediate risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle and
will therefore save lives and property now instead of paying for future
generations as mitigation would.
Furthermore, the use of appropriate technology such as micro-
irrigation might be the only option for these countries who cannot
afford mitigation strategies.
Adaptation strategies such as the development of flood embankments
which can be raised periodically will also spread the costs over time
and allow future generations to pay the cost for their protection. It
will also protect valuable economic infrastructure such as London
Docklands allowing continued economic growth.
Yet it does not tackle the underlying cause of the degradation of the
carbon cycle and so adaptation strategies will have to be maintained
and upgraded by future generations increasing intergenerational debt.
Crucially adaptation strategies such as land-use planning and flood-
risk management does not address all of the risks caused by the
degradation of the carbon cycle particularly risks to ocean health and
forest loss.
Moreover adaptation strategies such as resilient agricultural systems
will only be effective if climate change is gradual and will struggle to
address the risks posed if there is rapid climate change that some
scientists believe is possible.
It is also very important to remember that poorer countries lack the
finance, infrastructure and technical knowledge to implement many of
the adaptive strategies proposed. In addition, many species might
not be able to adapt to climate change and so become extinct.
PMT
It is therefore clear that mitigation strategies are more important in
addressing the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle as
they are the only strategies which address the risks at a global scale
as well as being a long term solution for the continued health of the
planet. Adaptation strategies are however useful at a local and short
term level. Adaptation strategies will ‘buy time’ for communities and
allow them to wait for the benefits of longer term mitigation strategies
to reduce the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle.
