Week twelve Mitigation and Adaptation

Mitigation and Adaptation

 

All scientific predictions and modelling dynamics clearly predict that in one way or another, somehow somewhere, sometime, a collapse is coming the earth’s way. All business as usual models predict it and humans have continued to use non-renewable energy at an ever increasing rate over the past decade. This has also pushed the CO2 emissions higher up, which is detrimental to the environment. There are some risk factors increasing the likability of this collapse happening, which are: population, climate, water, agriculture and energy. Our economy also plays a role, because our current economic system stimulates exponential growth where we will need more energy for and also more food, water-use and maybe a growing population. How have we dealt with this presumable collapse up till now?

Our debates have been going about whether we would have to mitigate or adapt. Mitigation holds many advantages in the long term. Still, most people, and surely most of the ruling elites, choose adaptation over mitigation. They perceive adaptation as being less disruptive to our modern lifestyle. But adaptation can sometimes mean the problem is just relocated elsewhere. And in the meantime, the “collapse” becomes ever more apparent. So again, what do we do? (http://www.policymic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us)

Let’s take a closer look to mitigation and adaptation. An example of mitigation is emission reduction. This means we emit less of harmful gases in the air and also have to change our lifestyle to do so. Another example is remove CO2 out of the air, by high-technological solutions (geoengineering) or maybe by planting more and more trees. These solutions don’t necessarily require a major change of our current lifestyle, but it might take quite some time before they are fully developed. The adaptation solution involves things we do to limit our vulnerability. They only deal with impacts on human society. These measures do not take the vulnerability of other ecosystems (coral reef, wetlands, and forests) into account. In the picture below, both terms are presented as two alternatives (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/175).



                     (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/175)

If we examine the figure more closely, we will see that neither one alternative can be totally neglected. Things which at first do not affect us but affects other ecosystems may in turn be a loss for humans. If the coral reef is destroyed, we might use fish, and other food resources necessary for our survival. Also, since some climate change effects are already happening (especially global warming) we cannot mitigate this and have to find ways to adapt. So, instead of making a choice for either one, we might make a choice to do both. When both measures are practiced, the climate change vulnerability for the earth as a whole will be reduced to modest levels for most parts of the world.



(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/175)