How to evaluate or analyse a climate change management strategy
Some evaluation of the effectiveness of climate change management strategies
Evaluation questions are the most challenging. You need to understand how something works before you can evaluate it.
Evaluation is YOU using your knowledge to come to a conclusion if something is good, bad or in between somewhere.
Evaluation is very important though. If you can identify where something does not work very well or has limitations you can improve it. If you can focus on what something does well you can use it more effectively.
Be aware, a lot of these will come down to money. It is not effective because it costs too much can only be used as a reason once. After that, you will have to remember more reasons why a strategy is good or bad.
This task leads on from the lesson on Climate Change management strategies. If you set your notes up properly you should be adding to those in the same way.
Digital Workbook and Paper Jotter
Read through the material below. This covers the same strategies as discussed in lesson 8.
Create either a mindmap or table to input the information. I have added examples below to help you.
Pro:
This works increasingly well as young people are becoming more and more aware of the climate impacts.
Con:
Can lead to increased anxiety about the hopelessness of the situation or an over-saturation of the material which can lead to a lack of interest or boredom.
Cons:
Disposal is the largest problem with these, as correct disposal is time-consuming and costly. Low-income countries do not have the same structures in place to control the appropriate disposal of these which can release more greenhouse gasses during the upgrading of refrigeration units.
Renewable Energy Sources
Pro:
A good replacement for traditional fossil fuel consuming power stations. We are consuming more and more power than ever before so we need to provide it somehow. This would allow us to do that cheaply.
Con:
Renewable energy consumption is controversial as a large number of fossil fuels during construction. Hydroelectric dams specifically require a large amount of cement which produces CO2 during production. There is also no way to currently store the energy produced, so it needs to be produced then used and the wind may not be blowing when it is needed.
Con:
Upgrading existing houses can be very costly and affect lower-income households more as they cannot afford, even with grants, to insulate their homes.
Pro:
If this could be done, then it would help save money for homes as well. It was used as a core Labour General Election policy in 2019 but refused to get the general backing and dismissed as an over expensive endeavour.
Carbon Capture
Pro:
If done properly could actually provide a secondary power source however this is complicated. Carbon capture could be used in concrete manufacture to make it stronger
and reduce the emissions created through concrete production.
Con:
This only works in certain situations. After CO2 has been released into the atmosphere it is almost impossible to collect back. Carbon Capture can only be done at the point of production while limiting new carbon emissions does nothing to help reverse the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Large countries like China & India tend to oppose any discussion of population controls in climate change documentation. It is then largely ignored as a cause of climate change. Family planning will need to come from alternative sources without government support, this means it is unlikely to have a huge impact.
You Decide: Pro or Con
A well-published but hugely contentious solution. As it is one strategy that can draw down existing CO2 in the atmosphere and store it in an efficient way. As it is very easy to demonstrate and carry out the method it receives a lot of funding. As such a lot of afforestation companies only carry this out for economic benefit rather than for environmental reasons. There is no guarantee they will not be sold on and cut down before they have captured as much Carbon as possible. The size of forests that would need to be planted is another challenge, new or restored forests the size of Russia would absorb 200bn tonnes of CO2. Annual emissions if left unchecked (37bn Tonnes) would fill this carbon sink every 5 years.
Pro:
LED use 90% less energy than incandescent bulbs for the same amount of light. They also have a long life span so less need to produce to carry out the same task over the lifetime of a bulb.
Pros:
This is arguably the most effective method as it can reduce carbon emissions at the source in a way that no other strategy can. It taxes the large emitters more, for the negative impact they have on society. This encourages companies to change methods to reduce emissions rather than continue paying large amounts of money.
Cons:
Only 29 countries have brought in carbon taxes, without global agreement large companies could find loopholes which mean they do not need to pay or if the charges are not severe enough it will not encourage the company to change its ways.
Pro:
This can also have the benefit of supporting the local economy and keeping employment in rural areas high.
Con:
Organic and buying local produce can be expensive, so this can be difficult for people to do due to cost constraints. It is also difficult to provide an adequate food supply from purely
locally grown produce.
Pros:
Is a change to lifestyle and costs very little money, which can be very successful if everyone takes part.
Cons:
People do not either through lack interest, it is inconvenient or lack of education about how to do it properly. With increasing amounts of recycling bins, it is increasingly difficult to work out what can be recycled and what can’t.