How Restoration Can or Cannot Control the
Effects of Climate Change
Things are heating up--literally.
Climate change, or the gradually increasing temperature on earth's surface and
oceans, is a fact observed and agreed upon by most scientists worldwide. Less
clear is whether humans are part of the cause.
Many organizations, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
NASA, and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change believe that global warming has
been accelerating in recent years due to human activity.
Another theory, advocated by high profile figures like the United Kingdom's
Environmental Secretary Owen Paterson, suggest that climate change is merely due
to natural weather fluctuation. Others believe that an increased supply of CO2
is necessary to feed plants and restore global equilibrium.
Looking for very cheap UK car insurance?
This site has really cheap car
insurance companies you can buy inexpensive motor insurance policies from.
Though scientific opinion is far from unanimous, climate change continues
throughout the world.
Whether through man-made or natural causes, the destruction of ecosystems
releases more carbon into the air, which some groups identify as a contributing
factor to climate change. Luckily, efforts to both stop destroying natural
habitats and restore affected habitats have had positive effects.
For example, one method of restoration involves moving plants from southern
climates to northern climates. As the native plants in the northern climates
migrate or die as a result of the higher temperatures, the new plants can
maintain the the ecosystem.
Another restoration technique is to safeguard existing biodiversity. Since
destroying plants releases more carbon into the air, protecting them diminishes
the amount of greenhouse gases released. Additionally, plants store carbon
permanently in the ground.
Unfortunately, as the climate changes, native plant species are forced to
migrate or face extinction. Thus, protecting existing habitats can only help to
a certain extent. While it helps to prevent further climate change, if the
climate change is not slowed down enough the plants will suffer and eventually
die.
As the plants disappear, so do the animals which depend on them to live.
Gradually, the entire ecosystem crumbles. More active methods of restoration --
such as intentionally reintroducing native and warmer-climate plants to an
ecosystem -- are most effective.
To strengthen ecosystems at risk for extinction, residents can plant more native
trees and reduce the introduction of invasive species. Adding more plants will
help to reduce the amount of carbon present. Preventing invasive species allows
the ecosystem to continue to function effectively.
Though restoring ecosystems can be an effective method of combating climate
change, it is not an easy process. Many factors affect the feasibility of
restoration. Not only must the science of the project be considered -- such as
how an ecosystem functions, relationships between species, and the amount of
time restoration will require -- but public opinion as well. Each community has
to weigh the economic and environmental costs against the potential outcomes.
Additionally, restoration is not guaranteed to work. Each ecosystem must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which costs time and money and requires
expert analysis. Some communities opt for abandonment, in which an ecosystem is
left alone to recover naturally.
Restoration could be a viable solution to controlling the effects of climate
change if the scientific community deems it necessary. Ultimately, humans are
left to weigh the costs and benefits of intervening with nature. k
Copyright ser2011.org All
Rights Reserved HOME |