AO1 (5 marks)/AO2 (15 marks)

Marking instructions
Markers must apply the descriptors in line with the general marking guidance and the qualities outlined in the levels-based mark scheme below.
Responses that demonstrate only AO1 without any AO2 should be awarded marks as follows:

Level 1 AO1 performance: 1 mark
Level 2 AO1 performance: 2 marks
Level 3 AO1 performance: 3 marks.
Level 4 AO1 performance: 4–5 marks.

Indicative content guidance
The indicative content below is not prescriptive and candidates are not required to include all of it. Other relevant material not suggested below must also be credited. Relevant points may include:

AO1

Re-balancing the carbon cycle could be achieved through mitigation (carbon taxation, renewable switching, energy efficiency, afforestation, carbon capture and storage). This requires global scale agreement and national actions both of which have proved to be problematic.
Adaptation strategies for a changed climate (water conservation and management, resilient agricultural systems, land-use planning, flood-risk management, solar radiation management) have different costs and risks.
Increased temperatures affect evaporation rates and the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere with implications for precipitation patterns, river regimes and water stores.
Threats to ocean health pose threats to human wellbeing, especially in developing regions that depend on marine resources as a food source and for tourism and coastal protection.
Forest loss has implications for human wellbeing but there is evidence that forest stores are being protected and even expanded, especially in countries at higher levels of development (environmental Kuznets’ curve model).

AO2

The key advantage of mitigation strategies is that they are the only strategy that offers a long term solution to the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle. Unless carbon emission can be stabilised through mitigation strategies, global temperatures are set to rise by more than the 2C threshold that most scientists agree initiates uncontrollable positive feedback loops that will magnify all of the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle.
Crucially mitigation strategies address all of the key risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle such as changes to the hydrological cycle, ocean health and forest loss and if implemented at a global scale can address these risks globally. Mitigation strategies are also crucial to the survival of natural ecosystems that will not be able to adapt to a changed climate that is more than 2C above pre industrial levels.
Furthermore, the short term economic costs of mitigation strategies have been shown by authors such as Stern to have net positive long term economic benefits as the strategies should be considered in the light of the value of ecosystems that they are helping to maintain.
However, mitigation strategies do not address the immediate risks to the hydrological cycle, the oceans or to the forests posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle.
Furthermore, it has been proved difficult to implement global mitigation strategies. Few European countries even met their Kyoto agreements whilst the latest Paris 2015 agreement is based on each country setting its own targets which are not binding or enforceable in international law. The agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments and so the withdrawal of key signatories such as the US might lead to the collapse of the agreement reducing the efficacy of the strategy in reducing the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle.
Although regional and national mitigation strategies such as the EU Emission Trading Scheme and the UK Carbon Tax have proved to be more successful in stabilising carbon emissions and they have been criticised for not changing people’s behaviour and so not offering a long term solution to the degradation of the carbon cycle.
Many mitigation strategies such as the use of renewables will be expensive and have ‘upfront costs’ i.e. today’s generation will pay for the excesses of previous generations energy use and will also have to pay for future generations well-being and cause so called inter-generational transfer of costs. Furthermore the use of renewables is controversial in sensitive areas such as National Parks whilst there are also other concerns on the viability of providing reliable energy supplies.
A key advantage of adaptation strategies such as flood protection and the development of drought resistant crops is that it addresses the immediate risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle and will therefore save lives and property now instead of paying for future generations as mitigation would.
Furthermore, the use of appropriate technology such as micro-irrigation might be the only option for these countries who cannot afford mitigation strategies.
Adaptation strategies such as the development of flood embankments which can be raised periodically will also spread the costs over time and allow future generations to pay the cost for their protection. It will also protect valuable economic infrastructure such as London Docklands allowing continued economic growth.
Yet it does not tackle the underlying cause of the degradation of the carbon cycle and so adaptation strategies will have to be maintained and upgraded by future generations increasing intergenerational debt.
Crucially adaptation strategies such as land-use planning and flood-risk management does not address all of the risks caused by the degradation of the carbon cycle particularly risks to ocean health and forest loss.
Moreover adaptation strategies such as resilient agricultural systems will only be effective if climate change is gradual and will struggle to address the risks posed if there is rapid climate change that some scientists believe is possible.
It is also very important to remember that poorer countries lack the finance, infrastructure and technical knowledge to implement many of the adaptive strategies proposed. In addition, many species might not be able to adapt to climate change and so become extinct.
It is therefore clear that mitigation strategies are more important in addressing the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle as they are the only strategies which address the risks at a global scale as well as being a long term solution for the continued health of the planet. Adaptation strategies are however useful at a local and short term level. Adaptation strategies will ‘buy time’ for communities and allow them to wait for the benefits of longer term mitigation strategies to reduce the risks posed by the degradation of the carbon cycle.

Accept other evaluations of why mitigation strategies are more important than adaption strategies.

Global Climate System Links to Carbon & Water Cycles (Edexcel A Level Geography)

Topic Questions