Climate Change Adaptation Case Studies: Theory vs. Practice
In recent years, scientists, governments, and private research organizations have begun to dive deeper to find new ways to control and mitigate the effects of climate change. However, many challenges present themselves in developing climate adaptation strategies. Groundbreaking and innovative climate solutions rely primarily on theory and projections, as there is limited data and research available from past studies to utilize. Further, there is limited investment in enhancing climate adaptation research outside of academics. Consequently, we must begin to put more effort into understanding how predictive and theoretical climate adaptation approaches contribute to their intended goals without operational assurances in place.
While some climate change adaptation theories are easy to get on board with, others lack essential data and evidence to make a confident decision. Below, we look at 3 of the most prominent climate change adaptation solutions, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and examine a climate change adaptation case study for each solution.
Carbon Emissions Caps (Cap-and-Trade) Will Slow Local Temperature Changes
A common climate adaptation strategy on the government level is carbon emissions caps and allowances. While the bones of this strategy – putting caps on carbon emissions to reduce atmospheric CO2 – are backed by data and common sense, we are unsure of the long-term effects it may have on temperature.
If climate change were as cut-and-dry as we wished, we would be able to say, “look, increased atmospheric CO2 is a driving factor that causes geographical temperature changes. So, if we reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, we should see fewer and less severe temperature changes in the future.” Unfortunately, things are not that simple, and climate change is multifaceted. While reducing atmospheric carbon should mitigate severe temperature changes and fluctuations, other factors may alter the expected outcome.
Case Study: European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS)
The EU ETS was one of the most ambitious cap and trade system that has been implemented, and ultimately, was successful in reducing a large amount of carbon emissions. The EU ETS was created in 2003, when member states agreed to an emissions trading scheme in which permits could be bought to cover carbon emissions. If an institution needed to cover more emissions, they could buy more permits or face a penalty for each ton of carbon they failed to account for with permits.
According to a 2020 study, since the ETS’ implementation in 2005, this classic cap-and-trade system has saved more than 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide between 2008 and 2016, which is equal to a 3.8% reduction in EU-wide emissions. Although the ETS’ effects are difficult to measure (as we don’t know what the situation would be if it had never been implemented), statistical models show that the policy has been successful in reducing carbon emissions over time.
Adding Mass-Quantities of Iron to the Ocean Will Reduce Atmospheric CO2
Among the more interesting climate change adaptation theories is whether or not “fertilizing” the ocean would reduce atmospheric carbon. Since the 1980s, scientists have studied iron’s effects on ocean-dwelling phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are microscopic organisms that consume atmospheric carbon through photosynthesis and other metabolic processes, pulling carbon from the air, transforming it, and depositing it to the seafloor.
Suppose iron, the limiting nutrient for phytoplankton growth throughout most of the world’s oceans, was deposited into the sea in mass quantities. Would it increase the abundance of oceanic phytoplankton? Would it help pull excess carbon out of the atmosphere in a similar manner?
It’s an exciting theory that deserves consideration.
In a recent study conducted by MIT, scientists explain why this theory may not be valid in the fight against climate change. According to the study, fertilizing the ocean with iron wouldn’t significantly affect atmospheric carbon, mainly because they expect that the overall biomass of phytoplankton would not change significantly.
But how is this the case if iron is a limiting nutrient for oceanic phytoplankton growth?
While iron is limiting in most oceans, it is not in others. Without getting too technical, the oceanic iron cycle is so complex that while iron additions may show positive feedback to phytoplankton growth and carbon uptake locally, it would show negative feedback in other locations. Simply put, the total amount of iron in the entirety of the ocean is more or less “just right” for biological operational efficiency – and the same goes for phytoplankton biomass.
Case Study: Controversial Iron-Dumping Experiment in the Pacific Ocean
In 2012, a businessman released 100 tons of iron dust into the Pacific Ocean of the coast of Canada with no scientific or government permission or oversight. Russ George, the so-called climate crusader, dumped the iron in an attempt to study how iron fertilization can fight climate change. Because this was ultimately a small-scale experiment, the results are unclear, although George claims that algae bloomed “immediately,” and successfully captured carbon. While the algal bloom has been confirmed by satellite imagery, it’s difficult to measure carbon capture, especially because this experiment was not well controlled.
Local Crop Diversification Will Protect Regional Biodiversity
Diversification is a buzzword in climate change, and biodiversity in agriculture is a hot topic in the quest to maintain and protect natural ecosystem biodiversity. Agricultural research shows that crop diversity promotes local ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, microbial production, and soil health. One study found that diversifying crops enhanced local natural biodiversity by 25% while also improving water quality, soil quality, pest control, and disease control. Another study showed that crop diversification regenerated ecological processes directly impacting natural ecosystems – ultimately supporting biodiversity.
While crop diversification undoubtedly protects and improves local biodiversity, too many factors contribute to regional biodiversity to maintain the same theory. Regional biodiversity interconnects with local biodiversity only when ecosystem services overlap, so the gap is too broad to claim positive feedback without shared services.
Case Study: Crop Diversification Preserves Bird Diversity in the US
A 2021 study set out to examine whether increased food crop diversity can preserve local biodiversity. They analyzed the diversity of local crops growing around the US, and then analyzed the local bird diversity. The authors conclude that diversifying food crops can increase the local diversity of birds, an effect that may extend to other animals. It’s also important to note that the authors believe crop diversity can be implemented without reducing the food yields, and thus does not negatively impact farmers’ profits.
In recent years, scientists, governments, and private research organizations have begun to dive deeper to find new ways to control and mitigate the effects of climate change. However, many challenges present themselves in developing climate adaptation strategies. Groundbreaking and innovative climate solutions rely primarily on theory and projections, as there is limited data and research…