Mitigation and Adaptation

Two key concepts.

Here is the original of the piece I wrote for Geography Review in 2016.

Mitigation or adaptation?

These two words are often used in the contexts of hazard management, responses to the challenges posed by climate change, coastal management and even in financial terms as to whether there could be another economic crash or not. They cause a great deal of confusion, they have very different meanings and yet they are complicated in that one person’s mitigation could be another person’s adaptation and vice versa.

Take for example the photo shown below. It shows a lady in Nepal proudly standing next to her new acquisition – a solar panel with which she can heat her home and power her cooking, her washing and her mobile phone. In the background you can see piles of chopped wood which would be used to heat her home in the event of bad weather, and would otherwise have been used for cooking purposes too as an open fire. By not burning the timber she is reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) being put into the atmosphere, and thereby mitigating a cause of climate change. But, by using a renewable form of energy in response to changes in her climate as longer dry and sunny periods occur, she is also showing an adaptation to the changing patterns of weather in her region.

Photo: Paula Howell Evans

Mitigation means acting in such a way to reduce or lessen the severity or intensity of an event. In the context of climate change it refers to the reduction in the output of greenhouse gases and/or increasing the size and amount of greenhouse gas storage or sink sites. Examples of mitigation in this context are:

·         setting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as with the outcomes of the COP21 meeting in Paris in 2015

·         developing renewable sources of energy

·         ‘capturing’ carbon emissions and/or storing or burying them.

Adaptation means the process of adjustment to changes in an environment. Again, in the context of climate change, it refers to changing our lifestyles to cope with a new environment rather than trying to stop climate change. Examples of adaptation in this context are:

·         developing drought resistant crops as the climate in some parts of the world becomes drier

·         managing coastline retreat in areas vulnerable to sea level rise

·         switching to alternative sources of energy that make the best use of environmental conditions.

There are other differences. Mitigation has up-front economic costs. Humans need to spend money to develop renewable sources, recycle more, reduce energy consumption etc.  Adaptation has future economic costs. Humans in the future (your children and grandchildren) will need to spend money to cope with a changing climate, for example build higher flood defences, grow different crops, develop roads that don’t melt in the heat etc. Both adaptation and mitigation have pros and cons, and there are overlaps between them [Figure 1].

Figure 1. Some examples of climate change adaptation and mitigation

Human systems v natural systems

There is also a key difference between the ability of human systems and the ability of natural systems to respond to both mitigation and adaptation. As stated earlier, for human systems mitigation involves costs upfront to, say, reduce atmospheric pollution levels. Adaptation involves costs over a longer timescale as the effects of climate change emerge. There is also the issue that some areas of the developed world may have the resources to adapt to changing climate, whereas others in the poorer developing world lack the adaptive capacity (ie resources) to cope. Ability to adapt is therefore linked to development. Most adaptation strategies will be local in scale, as adaptations need to be tailored to local impacts of climate change. On the other hand, mitigation can operate at a variety of scales:

·         individual: lifestyles and consumption choices such as recycling more

·         local: local government strategies on planning, recycling and transport

·         national: government policies and national tax frameworks

·         global: international agreements for global action such as the Kyoto Protocol and the outcomes of COP21 in Paris.

For natural systems mitigation will limit damage to ecosystems. On the other hand, adaptation may condemn some natural systems that cannot adapt, and they may disappear or become extinct. The value of natural ecosystems forms a strong argument for acting now to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.

Coastal management

Within a coastal management context it is worth noting that managed retreat/ realignment is an adaptation strategy in some locations against rising sea levels associated with climate change. This strategy has been carried out in several places in the UK such as the Blackwater Estuary (Essex) and Porlock Bay (Somerset). Most recently the RSPB’s Bracklesham Bay reserve near Medmerry in Sussex has been re-engineered by a £28 million Environment Agency scheme to move sea defence berms inshore, and allow an area of marsh to flood. The area will become a ‘sponge’ during exceptional tides, and as sea levels rise, protecting inland and settlement areas nearby from flood waters.

On the other hand the strategy known as ‘Holding the line’ can be seen as a form of mitigation – preventing further incursions and damage by rising sea levels. This strategy is used when costs are deemed to be ‘high value’, such in areas of urban development and industry. In some cases rare ecosystems might be protected in this way. The line of the coast is held by using engineering, usually hard defences and there are many examples of sea walls, gabions and revetments around the UK coastline. However, this option has the most potential to cause conflict further along the coast. Many would see this strategy as being only temporary in some places, as rising sea levels may make it impossibly expensive to maintain in 50 or 100 years time. Most Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) take these factors into account, in other words they are supposed to be ‘future proofed’.

Conclusion

It is argued by some that no matter what we do in the 21st century to mitigate climate change, some aspects of adaptation will still be required.  Mitigation and adaptation are not direct alternatives – they will have to operate together.

The scientist Bjorn Lomborg has frequently stated that the world has insisted on trying to solve climate change by supporting the production of solar and wind power - mitigation. He states that the problem with this approach is that it puts the cart in front of the horse. These so-called ‘green technologies’ are not yet mature and are not yet competitive, but we insist on pushing them out to the world by offering subsidies for them. This is expensive. He argues that governments should focus on making renewable energy cheaper and more competitive through research and development of other sources of ‘green’ energy – in other words using this money to adapt to inevitable change. He says that once the price of green energy has been innovated down below the price of fossil fuels, everyone will switch. In other words, adaptation will yield mitigation.

Points for discussion

1.      Consider one or more natural hazards you have studied. What strategies have been employed/could be employed to mitigate and adapt to this/these hazard?

2.      Consider how the concepts of mitigation and adaptation can be applied to a human geography context of your choice.