Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas

Despite a great deal of research on public perceptions of climate change science, very little empirical work has attempted to investigate how members of the lay public might evaluate the justice dilemmas inherent within climate policy decision-making. This exploratory study contrasts arguments about justice from a mitigation perspective, with those from an adaptation perspective and draws insights about the contours of politically acceptable climate policy. Using think-aloud protocols and a structured elicitation approach with members of the lay public to generate quantitative and qualitative data, this study suggests that the two types of climate policy trigger different sets of arguments about justice. When asked about mitigation burden-sharing participants overwhelmingly invoke arguments about causality. In contrast, in discussions of adaptation participants emphasized the needs of the afflicted parties and their ability to cope. Furthermore, social and spatial distances were not a factor in allocation of mitigation burdens, but were used to discount the distribution of compensation towards adaptation. These initial data about public perceptions of justice in this area suggest that the public would view adaptation and mitigation as complements not substitutes. These findings also highlight the importance of exploring public reactions to the sub-components of climate policy individually.     

Climate change mitigation: trade-offs between delay and strength of action required

Climate change mitigation via a reduction in the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the principle requirement for reducing global warming, its impacts, and the degree of adaptation required. We present a simple conceptual model of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions to highlight the trade off between delay in commencing mitigation, and the strength of mitigation then required to meet specific atmospheric CO₂ stabilization targets. We calculate the effects of alternative emission profiles on atmospheric CO₂ and global temperature change over a millennial timescale using a simple coupled carbon cycle-climate model. For example, if it takes 50 years to transform the energy sector and the maximum rate at which emissions can be reduced is ?2.5% $\text{year}^{-1}$ , delaying action until 2020 would lead to stabilization at 540 ppm. A further 20 year delay would result in a stabilization level of 730 ppm, and a delay until 2060 would mean stabilising at over 1,000 ppm. If stabilization targets are met through delayed action, combined with strong rates of mitigation, the emissions profiles result in transient peaks of atmospheric CO₂ (and potentially temperature) that exceed the stabilization targets. Stabilization at 450 ppm requires maximum mitigation rates of ?3% to ?5% $\text{year}^{-1}$ , and when delay exceeds 2020, transient peaks in excess of 550 ppm occur. Consequently tipping points for certain Earth system components may be transgressed. Avoiding dangerous climate change is more easily achievable if global mitigation action commences as soon as possible. Starting mitigation earlier is also more effective than acting more aggressively once mitigation has begun.     

Representing global climate change,adaptation and mitigation

The diagrammatic representation of climate change, adaptation and mitigation is important in conceptualizing the problem, identifying important feedbacks, and communicating between disciplines. The Synthesis Report of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report, 2001, uses a “cause and effect” approach developed in the integrated assessment literature. This viewpoint reviews this approach and suggests an alternative, based on stocks and flows. The alternative gives a much richer representation of the problem so that it includes the enhanced greenhouse effect, ancillary benefits of mitigation, the distinction between climate-change and other stresses on natural systems, and a more refined distinction between adaptation and mitigation.     

Assessing synergies and trade-offs of diverging Paris-compliant mitigation strategies with long-term SDG objectives

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement are the two transformative agendas, which set the benchmarks for nations to address urgent social, economic and environmental challenges. Aside from setting long-term goals, the pathways followed by nations will involve a series of synergies and trade-offs both between and within these agendas. Since it will not be possible to optimise across the 17 SDGs while simultaneously transitioning to low-carbon societies, it will be necessary to implement policies to address the most critical aspects of the agendas and understand the implications for the other dimensions. Here, we rely on a modelling exercise to analyse the long-term implications of a variety of Paris-compliant mitigation strategies suggested in the recent scientific literature on multiple dimensions of the SDG Agenda. The strategies included rely on technological solutions such as renewable energy deployment or carbon capture and storage, nature-based solutions such as afforestation and behavioural changes in the demand side. Results for a selection of energy-environment SDGs suggest that some mitigation pathways could have negative implications on food and water prices, forest cover and increase pressure on water resources depending on the strategy followed, while renewable energy shares, household energy costs, ambient air pollution and yield impacts could be improved simultaneously while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, results indicate that promoting changes in the demand side could be beneficial to limit potential trade-offs.     

Micro hydropower: an alternative for climate change mitigation,adaptation, and development of marginalized local communities in Hispaniola Island

In this essay, we explore the contribution of establishing off-grid community micro-hydropower systems in the Dominican Republic to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Forty-five micro-hydropower systems were set up over 16 years that are sustainably and autonomously managed by the local groups and provide access to electricity to communities in remote areas while reducing CO₂ emissions and favoring carbon sequestration. In addition to mitigating climate change by avoiding emissions and reforestation of more than 28,000 t of CO₂ per year, these initiatives have improved the adaptive capacity of the local communities through contributing to biodiversity protection, climate policy development, and governance; as well as enhancing the wellbeing of families through increased savings, improved education, and increased income generation opportunities. We elaborate the key factors for success and considerations for meeting future challenges.     

Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities

While the focus of government climate change policy in many regions is on mitigation, research shows that integrated approaches, focusing equally on mitigation and adaptation, seen in the context of more general sustainability goals, may ultimately yield more productive outcomes. Since 2008, the province of British Columbia has mandated that local governments be carbon neutral in their own operations and has used a suite of policies, outreach and incentive tools to enable them to do so. The Meeting the Climate Change Challenge project explored eleven leading communities in B.C. to empirically examine how climate change policies and innovations are being framed and considered at the local scale.In this paper, we examine the synergies and trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation, and sustainability. Our findings suggest that, among leading communities, pursuing an integrated sustainability strategy (rather than a narrow focus on climate change) has the potential to yield benefits for both adaptation and mitigation in the majority of cases. The findings suggest that communities leading on climate innovation in the province have moved beyond a siloed approach in considering mitigation and adaptation. These findings have implications on integrated decision making at the municipal scale and multi-level governance, identifying both the challenges and the benefits inherent in pursuing multiple priorities simultaneously.     

Exploring optimal mitigation and adaptation investment strategies in China

After the successful conclusion of the Paris Climate Conference (Conference of the Parties (COP) 21), countries are now attempting to identify implementation measures. An important consensus has been reached on the necessity of putting in place both mitigation and adaptation measures. In this context, this article builds a three-sector China and rest of the world model based on the DE-carbonization Model with Endogenous Technologies for Emission Reductions (DEMETER) and World Induced Technical Change Hybrid (WITCH) models. It assesses China’s mitigation and adaptation investment strategies by 2050 with an optimization including climate externalities. By making the 450?ppm target and China’s 2030 CO₂ emissions peak exogenous, it assesses two scenarios: (1) investment only in mitigation and (2) investment in both mitigation and adaptation. The article finds the following: First, the policy package with investment in both mitigation and adaptation can ensure lower CO₂ emissions and avoid more climate damage. Second, investment in adaptation should be massively injected by around 2040, whereas mitigation efforts should be continuous. Third, the CO₂ emissions peak in the tertiary sector should come prior to 2030 while the emissions pathway of the secondary sector could be allowed to increase slowly until 2035.

POLICY RELEVANCE

• The necessity of engaging in both mitigation and adaptation has been widely accepted since the Paris Climate Conference (COP21), yet few studies exist in this regard concerning China.

• Substantial investment in adaptation needs to be introduced by 2040 while the investment on mitigation should peak by 2030.

• The CO₂ emissions peak in the tertiary sector would be reached prior to 2030 while the peak in the secondary sector is achieved around 2035.

• This provides an alternative in China to the existing argument of an earlier peak in the secondary sector.

     

Modeling adaptation as a flow and stock decision with mitigation

An effective policy response to climate change will include, among other things, investments in lowering greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), as well as short-term temporary (flow) and long-lived capital-intensive (stock) adaptation to climate change. A critical near-term question is how investments in reducing climate damages should be allocated across these elements of a climate policy portfolio, especially in the face of uncertainty in both future climate damages and also the effectiveness of yet-untested adaptation efforts. We build on recent efforts in DICE-based integrated assessment modeling approaches that include two types of adaptation—short-lived flow spending and long-lived depreciable adaptation stock investments—along with mitigation, and we identify and explore the uncertainties that impact the relative proportions of policies within a response portfolio. We demonstrate that the relative ratio of flow adaptation, stock adaptation, and mitigation depend critically on interactions among: 1) the relative effectiveness in the baseline of stock versus flow adaptation, 2) the degree of substitutability between stock and flow adaptation types, and 3) whether there exist physical limits on the amount of damages that can be reduced by flow-type adaptation investments. The results indicate where more empirical research on adaptation could focus to best inform near-term policy decisions, and provide a first step towards considering near-term policies that are flexible in the face of uncertainty.     

Felt responsibility and climate engagement: Distinguishing adaptation from mitigation

Policy makers and citizens must choose from among a growing variety of strategic options as they try to cope optimally with climate change. As a means of more accurately predicting different types of climate change engagement, we empirically distinguish individuals’ felt responsibility for mitigation (FRm) from felt responsibility for adaptation (FRa), and assess support for different climate action strategies (mitigation and adaptation). We surveyed two U.S. samples two months apart, and the replication study confirmed Study 1′s findings of differing predictive powers for FRm vs. FRa. Each type of felt responsibility, controlling for the other, served as a mediator between belief in global warming (as well as belief in anthropogenic cause of climate change) and its corresponding climate action strategy (mitigation vs. adaptation). FRa predicted adaptation measures but not mitigation measures, while FRm predicted mitigation measures more strongly than it predicted adaptation but did predict both action strategies. We also found important individual differences: people’s disposition toward behaving proactively correlated positively with all types of climate engagement, and political orientation (liberal/conservative ideology) interacted with climate action strategy (mitigation vs. adaptation) in predicting all engagement variables. Comparing levels of support across the political spectrum, the mitigation measures were highly polarizing, while the adaptation measures were less divisive.     

Modelling risk adaptation and mitigation behaviour under different climate change scenarios

The main objective of this study is to simulate household choice behavior under varying climate change scenarios using choice experiments. Economic welfare measures are derived for society’s willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce climate change induced flood risks through private insurance and willingness to accept compensation (WTAC) for controlled flooding under varying future risk exposure levels. Material flood damage and loss of life are covered in the insurance policy experiment, while the WTAC experiment also captures the economic value of immaterial flood damage such as feelings of discomfort, fear and social disruption. The results show that WTP and WTAC are substantial, suggesting a more prominent role of external social damage costs in cost-benefit analysis of climate change and flood mitigation policies.     

Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States

A February 2012 survey of almost 5,000 farmers across a region of the U.S. that produces more than half of the nation’s corn and soybean revealed that 66 % of farmers believed climate change is occurring (8 % mostly anthropogenic, 33 % equally human and natural, 25 % mostly natural), while 31 % were uncertain and 3.5 % did not believe that climate change is occurring. Results of initial analyses indicate that farmers’ beliefs about climate change and its causes vary considerably, and the relationships between those beliefs, concern about the potential impacts of climate change, and attitudes toward adaptive and mitigative action differ in systematic ways. Farmers who believed that climate change is occurring and attributable to human activity were significantly more likely to express concern about impacts and support adaptive and mitigative action. On the other hand, farmers who attributed climate change to natural causes, were uncertain about whether it is occurring, or did not believe that it is occurring were less concerned, less supportive of adaptation, and much less likely to support government and individual mitigative action. Results suggest that outreach with farmers should account for these covariances in belief, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation.     

The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate

The threat of global climate change has caused concern among scientists because crop production could be severely affected by changes in key climatic variables that could compromise food security both globally and locally. Although it is true that extreme climatic events can severely impact small farmers, available data is just a gross approximation at understanding the heterogeneity of small scale agriculture ignoring the myriad of strategies that thousands of traditional farmers have used and still use to deal with climatic variability. Scientists have now realized that many small farmers cope with and even prepare for climate change, minimizing crop failure through a series of agroecological practices. Observations of agricultural performance after extreme climatic events in the last two decades have revealed that resiliency to climate disasters is closely linked to the high level of on-farm biodiversity, a typical feature of traditional farming systems.Based on this evidence, various experts have suggested that rescuing traditional management systems combined with the use of agroecologically based management strategies may represent the only viable and robust path to increase the productivity, sustainability and resilience of peasant-based agricultural production under predicted climate scenarios. In this paper we explore a number of ways in which three key traditional agroecological strategies (biodiversification, soil management and water harvesting) can be implemented in the design and management of agroecosystems allowing farmers to adopt a strategy that both increases resilience and provides economic benefits, including mitigation of global warming.     

The ocean response to climate change guides both adaptation and mitigation efforts

The ocean's thermal inertia is a major contributor to irreversible ocean changes exceeding time scales that matter to human society. This fact is a challenge to societies as they prepare for the consequences of climate change, especially with respect to the ocean. Here the authors review the requirements for human actions from the ocean's perspective. In the near term (～2030), goals such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be critical. Over longer times (～2050–2060 and beyond), global carbon neutrality targets may be met as countries continue to work toward reducing emissions. Both adaptation and mitigation plans need to be fully implemented in the interim, and the Global Ocean Observation System should be sustained so that changes can be continuously monitored. In the longer-term (after ～2060), slow emerging changes such as deep ocean warming and sea level rise are committed to continue even in the scenario where net zero emissions are reached. Thus, climate actions have to extend to time scales of hundreds of years. At these time scales, preparation for “high impact, low probability” risks — such as an abrupt showdown of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, ecosystem change, or irreversible ice sheet loss — should be fully integrated into long-term planning.摘要在全球变化背景下, 海洋的很多变化在人类社会发展的时间尺度上 (百年至千年) 具有不可逆转性, 海洋巨大的热惯性是造成该不可逆性的主要原因. 这个特征为人类和生态系统应对海洋变化提出一系列挑战. 本文从海洋变化的角度总结了人类应对气候变化的要求, 提出需要进行多时间尺度的规划和统筹. 在近期 (到2030年) , 实现联合国可持续发展目标至关重要. 在中期 (2050–2060年前后) , 全球需要逐步减排并实现碳中和目标. 同时, 适应和减缓气候变化的行动和措施必须同步施行; 全球海洋观测系统需要得以维持并完善以持续监测海洋变化. 在远期 (在2060年之后) , 即使全球达到净零排放, 包括深海变暖和海平面上升在内的海洋变化都将持续, 因此应对全球变化的行动需持续数百年之久. 在该时间尺度, 应对“低概率, 高影响”气候风险 (即发生的可能性较低, 但一旦发生影响极大的事件带来的风险, 例如: 大西洋经圈反转环流突然减弱, 海洋生态系统跨过临界点, 无可挽回的冰盖质量损失等) 的准备应充分纳入长期规划.     

Multiple adaptation types with mitigation: A framework for policy analysis

Effective climate policy will consist of mitigation and adaptation implemented simultaneously in a policy portfolio to reduce the risks of climate change. Previous studies of the tradeoffs between mitigation and adaptation have implicitly framed the problem deterministically, choosing the optimal paths for all time. Because climate change is a long-term problem with significant uncertainties and opportunities to learn and revise, critical tradeoffs between mitigation and adaptation in the near-term have not been considered. We propose a new framework for considering the portfolio of mitigation and adaptation that explicitly treats the problem as a multi-stage decision under uncertainty. In this context, there are additional benefits to near-term investments if they reduce uncertainty and lead to improved future decisions. Two particular features are fundamental to understanding the relevant tradeoffs between mitigation and adaptation: (1) strategy dynamics over time in reducing climate damages, and (2) strategy dynamics under uncertainty and potential for learning. Our framework strengthens the argument for disaggregating adaption as has been proposed by others. We present three stylized classes of adaptation investment types as a conceptual framework: short-lived “flow” spending, committed “stock” investment, and lower capacity “option” stock with the capability of future upgrading. In the context of sequential decision under uncertainty, these subtypes of adaptation have important tradeoffs among them and with mitigation. We argue that given the large policy uncertainty that we face currently, explicitly considering adaptation “option” investments is a valuable component of a near-term policy response that can balance between the flexible flow and committed stock approaches, as it allows for the delay of costly stock investments while at the same time allowing for lower-cost risk management of future damages.     

Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change

This paper uses the MERGE integrated assessment model to identify the least-cost mitigation strategy for achieving a range of climate policies. Mitigation is measured in terms of GDP foregone. This is not a benefit-cost analysis. No attempt is made to calculate the reduction in damages brought about by a particular policy. Assumptions are varied regarding the availability of energy-producing and energy-using technologies. We find pathways with substantial reductions in temperature change, with the cost of reductions varying significantly, depending on policy and technology assumptions. The set of scenarios elucidates the potential energy system transformation demands that could be placed on society. We find that policy that allows for “overshoot” of a radiative forcing target during the century results in lower costs, but also a higher temperature at the end of the century. We explore the implications of the costs and availability of key mitigation technologies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy, and their combination, known as BECS, as well as nuclear and energy efficiency. The role of “negative emissions” via BECS in particular is examined. Finally, we demonstrate the implications of nationally adopted emissions timetables based on articulated goals as a counterpoint to a global stabilization approach.