Introduction: Global Warming Is Coming
The issue of climate changes not new; it has already been on the agenda of the world ecologists in 1990s, and in 2010s, the issue seems to have gained a new significance. The phenomenon is traditionally defined as a “process strongly affecting the water resources management as well as the flood frequency of the extreme events” (Brocca, Camici, Tarpanelli, Melone and Moramarco 2011, p. 98) and is clearly affecting the environment, people’s health and even some of the economic processes. Despite the relatively slow speed of the global warming process, it is bound to have drastic effects, including the rise of sea levels and the following threat of floods, a drop in rates of human health (primarily, the development of respiratory diseases and the speed of spreading diseases) is expected relatively soon (). While the measures used currently in order to address the climate change process can be viewed as adequate, they can only postpone the negative effects that climate change triggers, yet can hardly prevent it.
The Major Problems and What They Ensue
Triggered by the process of global warming, the gradual climate change of the Earth does have a tangibly negative effect. Traditionally, several key results of the climate change process are identified. Among these, the destruction of the natural habitat (the melting of ice caps and the following increase in the number of floods, the destruction of tropical forests and their replacement by savannah, etc.), the health concerns (rise in respiratory diseases and disease spreading speed, etc.), and the possible issues with food supply (caused by the extinction of certain species due to the aforementioned habitat destruction) should be named. Though clearly not the only ones, these are the most threatening ones.
The Benefits and Flaws of the Key Strategy
Much to the credit of researchers, a range of measures for addressing the problem of climate change have been suggested. The existing measures of addressing the problem can be split into two key types, i.e., mitigation and adaptation. One of the most reasonable mitigation strategies, reforestation should be viewed as a viable opportunity for restoring the natural harmony. Reforestation, as opposed to deforestation, presupposes that the depletion of the existing woodlands and forests should be addressed and that new forests and woodlands should be grown. For example, Gray et al. claim that “large-scale reforestation programs could be a potent and cost-effective climate change adaptation strategy” (Gray, Gylander, Mbooga, Chen and Hamann 2011, p. 1591).
True, in some cases, reforestation may become a counterproductive tool, particularly, in boreal regions, since “albedo cooling dominates over CO2 warming in boreal regions” (Pongratz, Reick, Raddatz, Caldeira and Claussen 2011, p. 5). However, as a general strategy, the idea of replenishing the forest resources seems a legitimate solution to the climate change issue.
By referring the specified strategy to the mitigation category, one presupposes that its application will finally lead to the eradication of the negative aftermath of the climate change process. Indeed, a closer look at the strategy in question will reveal that it, in fact, attempts at reversing the effects of climate change.
The Supplementary Strategy and How It Works
Unlike the previous strategy, which creates the premises for eliminating the aftereffects of the climate change, this one, being an adaptation, involves the strategies for dealing with the possible consequences, not mitigating them. This explains the radical differences between the two strategies specified. The sustainability strategy is aimed at reducing the harmful impact of industries, as well as the use of natural resources. Supposedly, with the help of the sustainability principle employed into the operation of entrepreneurships, a range of areas, including tourism, and everyday life, the factors contributing to the climate change (i.e., CO2 emissions, Freon emissions, etc.) will not have as much effect as they do now. For example, a factory producing toxic waste may adopt a less harmful strategy of waste disposal (reuse instead of landfill (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2010, p. 9)). The specified strategy takes admittedly much time – in fact, it is lifelong – and may happen to lack efficiency. However, it is quite cheap; moreover, with an appropriate promotion campaign, it will become very feasible.
Naturally, this strategy may seem somewhat slow and even lacking in efficiency due to the fact that it does not prevent the effects of the climate change. However, in a number of ways, the specified strategy can be viewed as a more adequate one, since it does take the positive effects of the climate change into account, therefore, being less aggressive.
Conclusion: The Catastrophe Can Be Prevented
There is no point ignoring the fact that the climate change not only takes place, but also escalates at a comparatively fast pace. A range of strategies have been suggested for addressing the issue; while the idea of eliminating every single effect of global warming by putting a stop to the process sounds very alluring, the concept of adaptation may bring more satisfying results due to its flexibility. Therefore, the supplementary strategy, which is traditionally shoved at the bottom of the priorities list, seems the most appropriate manner of dealing with the climate change process.
Brocca, L, Camici, S, Tarpanelli, A, Melone, F and Moramarco, T 2011, ‘Analysis of climate change effects on floods frequency through a continuous hydrological modelling,’ Climate change and its effects on water resources, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY, pp. 97–104.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2010, ‘A strategy for hazardous waste management in England,’ Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Web.
Gray, L K, Gylander, T, Mbooga, M s, Chen, P-y and Hamann, A 2011, ‘Assisted migration to address climate change: recommendations for aspen reforestation in western Canada,’ Ecological Applications, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1591–1603.
Pongratz, J, Reick, C H, Raddatz, T, Caldeira, K and Claussen, M 2011, ‘Past land use decisions have increased mitigation potential of reforestation,’ Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 38, no. L15701, pp. 1–5.