Dataset Information

Modeling the optimal mitigation of potential impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems.

ABSTRACT: Global warming is adversely affecting the earth's climate system due to rapid emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Consequently, the world's coastal ecosystems are rapidly approaching a dangerous situation. In this study, we formulate a mathematical model to assess the impact of rapid emissions of GHGs on climate change and coastal ecosystems. Furthermore, we develop a mitigation method involving two control strategies: coastal greenbelt and desulfurization. Here, greenbelt is considered in coastal areas to reduce the concentrations of GHGs by absorbing the environmental carbon dioxide (CO₂), whereas desulfurization is considered in factories and industries to reduce GHG emissions by controlling the release of harmful sulfur compounds. The model and how it can control the situation are analytically verified. Numerical results of this study are confirmed by comparison with other studies that examine different scenarios. Results show that both control strategies can mitigate GHG concentrations, curtail global warming and to some extent manage climate change. The results further reveal that both control strategies are more effective than one control method. Overall, the results suggest that the concentrations of GHGs and the effects of climate change can be controlled by adopting sufficient coastal greenbelt and desulfurization techniques in various industries.

SUBMITTER: Mandal S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8264614 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundModeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers.ObjectiveThe objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions.MethodsAn expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies.ResultsThe panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting.DiscussionThis checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

Project description:The cost-effective mitigation of climate change through nature-based carbon dioxide removal strategies has gained substantial policy attention. Inland and coastal wetlands (specifically boreal, temperate and tropical peatlands; tundra; floodplains; freshwater marshes; saltmarshes; and mangroves) are among the most efficient natural long-term carbon sinks. Yet, they also release methane (CH4) that can offset the carbon they sequester. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis on wetland carbon dynamics to (i) determine their impact on climate using different metrics and time horizons, (ii) investigate the cost-effectiveness of wetland restoration for climate change mitigation, and (iii) discuss their suitability for inclusion in climate policy as negative emission technologies. Depending on metrics, a wetland can simultaneously be a net carbon sink (i.e. boreal and temperate peatlands net ecosystem carbon budget = -28.1 ± 19.13 gC m-2 y-1) but have a net warming effect on climate at the 100 years time-scale (i.e. boreal and temperate peatland sustained global warming potential = 298.2 ± 100.6 gCO2 eq-1 m-2 y-1). This situation creates ambivalence regarding the effect of wetlands on global temperature. Moreover, our review reveals high heterogeneity among the (limited number of) studies that document wetland carbon budgets. We demonstrate that most coastal and inland wetlands have a net cooling effect as of today. This is explained by the limited CH4 emissions that undisturbed coastal wetlands produce, and the long-term carbon sequestration performed by older inland wetlands as opposed to the short lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere. Analysis of wetland restoration costs relative to the amount of carbon they can sequester revealed that restoration is more cost-effective in coastal wetlands such as mangroves (US$1800 ton C-1) compared with inland wetlands (US$4200-49 200 ton C-1). We advise that for inland wetlands, priority should be given to conservation rather than restoration; while for coastal wetlands, both conservation and restoration may be effective techniques for climate change mitigation.

Dataset Information

Modeling the optimal mitigation of potential impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets