Responses to Climate Change » Mitigation or Adaptation: Evaluating Responses

Evaluating means weighing up

Last lesson you learned what the responses to climate change are. Now you must judge them. To evaluate, give strengths and weaknesses, then reach a conclusion. Good points to weigh are cost, scale (how big the effect is), time to work and who benefits.

Key terms:

• Legally binding: a country must obey the rule and can be held to account if it does not.
• Climate finance: money given or lent, mostly by richer countries, to help poorer countries cut emissions and adapt.

How successful were the international agreements?

Remember, Kyoto (1997) and Paris (2015) are both strategies to cut emissions. Here is how they compare.

	Kyoto Protocol	Paris Agreement
Who took part	Richer countries had targets. LICs and MICs had none.	Almost every country, rich and poor, makes a pledge.
Targets	Set for each rich country. Together about 5% below 1990 levels in 2008 to 2012.	Each country sets its own pledge.
Legally binding?	Yes, the targets were binding.	The agreement is a treaty, but the pledges are not binding. Countries must report on them, but are not forced to meet them.
Strength	First time countries agreed to binding cuts. Many countries with targets met them.	Nearly the whole world is involved, so more emissions are covered.
Weakness	The USA signed but never ratified it (never formally approved it at home). Canada pulled out, announced in 2011. Big emitters in the LICs and MICs had no targets.	Pledges so far are not enough to stay well below 2°C. Countries are not punished for missing them.

The role of the biggest emitters. The success of any agreement depends on the countries that emit the most, such as China, the USA and India. Under Kyoto, China and India had no targets and the USA stayed out, so global emissions kept rising. Paris fixed part of this by bringing in nearly every country. However, if a big emitter weakens its pledge or leaves, the whole agreement is weaker.

Targets met or missed? Some Kyoto countries met their targets. Part of this was luck, because many factories closed in Eastern Europe in the 1990s and emissions fell. Overall, the world's emissions did not fall. Under Paris, the pledges made so far would still lead to warming well above 2°C, so countries must set tougher ones.

Evaluating mitigation techniques

Technique	Strengths	Weaknesses
Renewable energy	Tackles the cause. No emissions when making electricity. Can be used at any scale, from a roof to a wind farm.	High cost to build. Solar and wind do not work all the time, so storage or back-up is needed.
Afforestation	Fairly cheap. Also helps wildlife and soil.	Trees take many years to grow, so it is slow. Land is needed, which competes with farming.
Carbon capture and storage	Lets power stations and factories keep working with fewer emissions.	Very expensive. Still on a small scale worldwide.
Carbon tax	Gives everyone a reason to use less fossil fuel.	Raises prices, so can be unpopular and hit poorer people hardest.

The big strength of mitigation is that it is the only response that tackles the cause. Its weakness is that it works slowly. Greenhouse gases stay in the air for a long time, so the climate keeps changing for years even after emissions fall. Mitigation also only works if many countries take part, because one country cannot stop global warming alone.

Evaluating adaptation techniques

Technique	Strengths	Weaknesses
Sea walls and flood defences	Protect people and homes now.	Costly to build and repair. Do nothing to stop sea levels rising.
Drought-resistant crops	Keep food supplies going in dry years.	Seed costs may be too high for poor farmers.
Water conservation	Cheap, and works quickly.	Only helps with shortages. Does not solve other problems.

The strength of adaptation is that it protects people now, and it can be done locally without needing other countries. The weaknesses are that it does not tackle the causes, so the problem keeps growing, and that it is costly. It is also unequal. Rich countries can afford sea walls and early warnings. LICs often cannot, even though they usually did the least to cause the problem.

Climate finance and fairness

Richer countries have burned the most fossil fuels over time, but poorer countries often suffer the most and have less money to cope. Many people argue this is unfair. Climate finance tries to fix this. Richer countries promised US$100 billion a year for poorer countries by 2020. It was first reached in 2022, about two years late, at roughly US$116 billion. In 2024, richer countries agreed to aim for at least US$300 billion a year by 2035.

Questions of fairness remain. LICs say the money is too little and too late. Some money comes as loans, which add to debt. Richer countries say they are giving more every year and that big emitters in MICs should help too.

Why both are needed

Mitigation and adaptation work best together. Mitigation limits how bad climate change becomes in the future. Adaptation protects people from the changes already happening. If we only adapt, the problem keeps growing and costs rise. If we only mitigate, people still suffer in the years before it works.

Exam-style question

Fig. 1.1 (made-up data) shows two countries' actions on climate change.

Country	Main action	Cost	Time to work
P	Builds large solar farms	High	20 years
Q	Builds sea walls and flood shelters	Medium	5 years

(a) Identify which country in Fig. 1.1 is using mitigation. [1 mark]

(b) State one reason the Kyoto Protocol was not fully successful. [1 mark]

(c) Explain one weakness of adaptation. [2 marks]

(d) 'Mitigation is better than adaptation.' To what extent do you agree? [6 marks]