IB Ess 6 3 Climate Change Mitigation And Adaptation Question Bank

the mitigation strategy reduces the cause of climate change by removing \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) /greenhouse gas from atmosphere; whereas an adaptation strategy reduces negative/maximises positive impacts of climate change / addresses impacts rather than causes of climate change; Responses may involve giving examples of either mitigation or adaptation strategies, but to gain the [2 max] they must include the characteristic/distinguishing feature of both mitigation and adaptation (ie "reducing cause" and "addressing impacts", respectively).

reducing energy/fossil fuel consumption through carbon tax/cap \& trade; reducing emissions of \(\mathrm{NO}_{\mathrm{x}} /\) methane/through catalytic converters/regulations; alternative energy sources; geoengineering; fertilizing oceans; afforestation/biomass production; Award [1] for each correct answer that will reduce emission/concentration of GHGs in atmosphere, up to [2 max].

Identify one reduction strategy that the United States may use to achieve its projected change in CO2 emissions. reduction of energy consumption/CO2 production through laws/taxes/education; use of alternatives to fossil fuels; \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) removal though CCS; afforestation / reducing rates of deforestation; Accept any other reasonable suggestions, but they must be explicitly linked to reduction in C emissions ie not simply "improve public transport" or "recycling".

flood defences (ie levees/dikes); desalinization plants to replace freshwater losses; planting of crops in previously unsuitable areas; water conservation (eg restrictions on use of irrigation/sprinklers); exploiting areas that have become more productive for crops through climate change; developing (eg drought-resistant) crops better adapted to areas impacted by climate change; green roof system that cools the building through evapotranspiration/reflection; Accept any other reasonable suggestions. Some strategies can be acknowledged as both adaptive and mitigating eg a "green roof" both reduces impact of climate change by cooling the building (adaptation) and reduces cause of climate change by reducing C emission (mitigation). Such suggestions should not be credited unless the link to reducing impact is made clear, as in the last MP above.

political will/pressure for change may differ due to some countries being more/less committed to their industrial lifestyles/economic growth / inhibited through political corruption; finance/economics may/may not allow some countries to fund new technologies/infrastructures; some countries may depend upon others for knowledge transfer/technological assistance to implement resolutions; religious/political/cultural norms/education in some countries may promote/limit their perception of environmental threats/approach to management; geographical location of some countries may place them at greater/more immediate risk from impacts of climate change (eg low-lying islands/tropical storm-prone nations) / or offer them greater opportunities for mitigation (eg available sources of alternative energy); some countries may perceive greater immediate priorities eg war in Syria/poverty in Somalia; Award [1] for each correct explanation, up to [4 max]. Accept other valid explanations of equivalent validity. Do not accept eg "Economics" alone without an explanatory note as in MPs above. Part (c) questions in Section B are all to be assessed using the markbands on page 18 with the guidance given below for each question.

Pros: a. more trees absorb more \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) so reduce global warming; b. reforestation simultaneously increases biodiversity; c. requires minimal technology/labour/expense; d. forests are naturally renewable carbon sink/indefinite lifetime; e. reforestation requires minimal ongoing maintenance; f. regulating local weather/decreasing extreme weather patterns; g. protects against run-off/soil erosion/desertification; h. it increases evapotranspiration which may increase cloud cover increasing albedo/mitigating warming Cons: a. it increases evapotranspiration so more water vapour/greenhouse gases/warming; b. more trees reduce reflected heat into atmosphere/absorb more heat so increase warming; c. it reduces land availability for agriculture/urban growth; d. it is not feasible in all locations/habitats; e. it requires large areas to make a significant difference; f. can be an expensive/unpopular solution; g. can take a long time/period of growth before it has significant impact on \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\); Award [3] max if only pros or only cons are given. Pro MPh and Con MPa may contradict one another but both are valid hypotheses and deserve credit Do not credit vague responses like "improves air quality" or "reduces air pollutants"

biofuel crops can be used to absorb carbon dioxide; biofuels produce less greenhouse gases (when burnt) compared to fossil fuels/oil/petrol/gas; use of biofuels is carbon neutral / carbon dioxide released during combustion is equal to the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during plant growth (stage of biofuel production); due to efficiency of biofuel production, further land clearance is not required, potentially protecting carbon sinks/forests; production of biofuels may release less emissions than extraction and production of fossil fuels; use of biofuels can reduce/replace use of fossil fuel (a non-renewable resource) / biofuels can replace use of fossil fuels in vehicles; it can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from storage;

producing biofuels can conflict with production of sufficient food supply (for growing population) / reduce land used for food production / can reduce food production/availability of food; ...leading to more food being imported / this can elevate cost of food, (particularly impacting on the poor) / cause food shortages / it could lead to famine; production of biofuels can use limited resources eg water for irrigation; ...this can result in water shortages/insufficient water for other uses; adoption of intensification of farming practices can lead to greater use of fertilizers and pesticide; ...this can result in greater pollution of the environment eg nutrient run-off can cause eutrophication / use of pesticides can cause death of non-target species; increasing amounts of land are required for growing biofuel crops; ...this can result in loss of habitats for native species/loss of biodiversity/land clearance can lead to soil degradation; biofuels can be expensive; ...therefore less likely to be used; growing crops for biofuels usually involves monocultures that reduces diversity; ...monoculture system is less resilient / high risk of crop failure; Only one limitation should be credited. For [2] the limitation and its impact must be explained. Do not accept that burning biofuels still releases carbon dioxide as net increase compared to use of fossil fuel is still reduced. Accept any other reasonable suggestions.

Agreement Issue Montreal protocol CFC use / ozone depletion; Kyoto protocol global warming/ climate change/ carbon dioxide emissions; CITES (international) trade in endangered species / loss of biodiversity; \footnotetext{ Award [1] for one or two correct responses. Award [2] for three correct responses. }

Answers may include: - understanding concepts and terminology of mitigation, adaptation, ecocentric/technocentric values, causes and impacts of global warming, strategies for reducing causes/managing impacts, carbon sinks, etc; - breadth in addressing and linking wide range of relevant strategies with mitigation or adaptation and with ecocentric values eg restraint/low consumption, changed lifestyles, sustainability, low technology, decentralization, and technocentric values eg maximizing growth, unlimited exploitation, resolving issues through technology, \& scientific expertise, etc; - examples of mitigation improving energy efficiency/consumption, alternative energies, reduction of emissions, eg catalytic converters, geoengineering, fertilizing oceans, afforestation/forest protection, UN REDD, carbon capture and storage, nutrifying oceans, etc and adaptation flood defence, desalinization, vaccination, crop choice, etc; - balanced analysis of the extent to which mitigation strategies are genuinely ecocentric and adaptation strategies are technocentric including counterarguments (may include reference to anthropocentric nature of some strategies) etc; - a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by, analysis and examples given eg "although, in general terms, ecocentric values favour a preventative approach and living within the sustainable limits rather than adapting to human impacts, some mitigation strategies involve a heavy use of large scale technology, acceptable to technocentrics, but to which ecocentrics are generally opposed"; Please see markbands on page 17.

[9 max] The following guide for using the markbands suggests certain features that may be offered in responses. The five headings coincide with the criteria in each of the markbands (although ESS terminology has been conflated with "understanding concepts"). This guide simply provides some possible inclusions and should not be seen as requisite or comprehensive. It outlines the kind of elements to look for when deciding on the appropriate markband and the specific mark within that band. Answers may include: - understanding concepts and terminology of air pollution (definition); human activities that can increase air pollution include combustion of fossil fuels in power stations/industries, use of cars, intensive agricultural practices, fires; ODSs; human activities that can decrease air pollution include afforestation, walking or using the bike, catalytic convertor use, legislation; - breadth in addressing and linking a range of human activities with a variety of positive and negative impacts from different societies on global air quality - examples can discuss issues such as legislation/afforestation/deforestation/behavioural changes in named regions or countries, policies, legislation including Montreal Protocol, Kyoto Protocol, technology, polluter pays principle (the more exhaust you produce the more you pay, e.g. in EU), green taxes/heavily taxing processes that produce a lot of pollution, and subsidizing PV panels, solar water heaters, reorienting education systems; wild fires, particulate removal (filters and electrostatic precipitators), NOx control by fitting catalytic convertors on cars to change pollutants to harmless substances: \(\mathrm{NO}_{2}\) into \(\mathrm{N}_{2}\) and \(\mathrm{O}_{2}\), CO into \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\), VOC into water and \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\), sulphur removal through changing fuel, low sulphur coal or change plant to solar-; fluidized bed combustion and flue gas desulphurization/scrubbers / limestone together with water is sprayed inside the chimney to convert \(\mathrm{SO}_{2}\) into calcium sulphate; - balanced analysis: of extent to which human activities have reduced or increased air pollution over last 50 years. - a conclusion that is consistent with and supported by analysis and examples given, e.g. "human activities have greatly increased air pollution, whereas the majority of activities that aim to reduce air pollution seem to be reactive rather than proactive in principle"; Please see markbands on page 19.

The following guide for using the markbands suggests certain features that may be offered in responses. The five headings coincide with the criteria given in each of the markbands (although "ESS terminology" has been conflated with "Understanding concepts"). This guide simply provides some possible inclusions and should not be seen as requisite or comprehensive. It outlines the kind of elements to look for when deciding on the appropriate markband and the specific mark within that band. Answers may include: - understanding concepts and terminology of development (may not just be economic); mitigation and adaptation strategies; climate change; NAPA, UNFCCC and IPCC; EIAs - breadth in addressing and linking climate change; demographic transition model; geographical factors such as location/biome; socio-economic and political factors may be related to EVS; - examples of mitigation and adaptation strategies in at least two contrasting countries; - balanced analysis discussing range of factors influencing a society's choices; - a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by, analysis and examples given eg the combination of political system and economic development will be the primary determinant of the choice of mitigation and adaptation strategies, with countries such as USA preferring to invest in adaptation strategies involving hard infrastructure while less economically developed countries will heavily support the implementation of IPCC climate goals (mitigation) and education of the population to mitigate problems; Please see markbands on page 22.

use of scrubbers on factories/power plants; use of catalytic converters on vehicles; regulating quality of exhaust gases; using low sulphur coal resources; restoring ecosystems damaged by pollutants / eg liming of acidified lakes; sequestration/CCS; afforestation/reforestation/reducing deforestation; masks reducing inhalation of toxic gases/emissions; building of sea defences; vaccination/anti-malarial programmes; Credit any responses identifying other valid strategies that don't involve reducing fossil fuel use. Do not credit "increasing efficiency of vehicles/machinery using fossil fuels"...these will only limit impact by reducing consumption, which is explicitly excluded by question. (b) Suggest a range of practical procedures that could be carried out to measure the abiotic and biotic impacts of an oil spill in an aquatic ecosystem.