Climate Change Impacts on Freshwater Wetland Hydrology and Vegetation Cover Cycling Along a Regional Aridity Gradient

Global mean temperature may increase up to 6°C by the end of this century and together with precipitation change may steepen regional aridity gradients. The hydrology, productivity, and ecosystem services from freshwater wetlands depend on their future water balance. We simulated the hydrology and vegetation dynamics of wetland complexes in the North American Prairie Pothole Region with the WETLANDSCAPE model. Simulations for 63 precipitation × temperature combinations spanning 6°C warming and −20% to +20% annual precipitation change at 19 locations along a mid-continental aridity gradient showed that aridity explained up to 99% of the variation in wetland stage and hydroperiod for all wetland permanence types, and in vegetation cycling for semipermanent wetlands. The magnitude and direction of hydrologic responses depended on whether climate changes increased or decreased water deficits. Warming to 6°C and 20% less precipitation increased wetland water deficits and more strongly decreased wetland stage and hydroperiod from historic levels at low aridity, especially in semipermanent wetlands, where peak vegetation cycling (Cover Cycle Index, CCI) also shifted to lower aridity. In contrast, 20% more precipitation decreased water deficits, increasing wetland stage and hydroperiod most strongly in shallow wetlands at high aridity, but filling semipermanent wetlands and reducing CCI at low aridity. All climate changes narrowed the range of aridity favorable to high productivity. Climate changes that reduce water deficits may help maintain wetlands at high aridity at the expense of those at low aridity, but with warming certain, increased deficits are more likely and will help maintain wetlands at lower aridity but exacerbate loss of wetlands at high aridity. Thus, there is likely not a universally applicable approach to mitigating climate change impacts on freshwater wetlands across regional aridity gradients. Conservation strategies need to account for aridity-specific effects of climate change on freshwater wetland ecosystems

Challenges to adaptation: a fundamental concept for the shared socio-economic pathways and beyond

The framework for the new scenarios being developed for climate research calls for the development of a set of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), which are meant to differ in terms of their challenges to mitigation and challenges to adaptation. In order for the scenario process to fulfill its goals, the research and policy communities need to develop a shared understanding of these concepts. This paper focuses on challenges to adaptation. We begin by situating this new concept in the context of the rich literatures related to inter alia adaptation, vulnerability, and resilience. We argue that a proper characterization of challenges to adaptation requires a rich, exploration of the concept, which goes beyond mere description. This has a number of implications for the operationalization of the concept in the basic and extended versions of the SSPs. First, the elements comprising challenges to adaptation must include a wide range of socioeconomic and even some (non-climatic) biophysical factors. Second, careful consideration must be given to differences in these factors across scales, as well as cross-scale interactions. Third, any representation of the concept will require both quantitative and qualitative elements. The scenario framework offers the opportunity for the SSPs and full scenarios to be of greater value than has been the case in past exercises to both Integrated Assessment Modeling (IAM) and Impacts,Adaptation, and Vulnerability (IAV) researchers, but this will require a renegotiation of the traditional, primarily unidirectional relationship between the two communities

Technical summary

Human interference with the climate system is occurring. Climate change poses risks for human and natural systems. The assessment of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (WGII AR5) evaluates how patterns of risks and potential benefits are shifting due to climate change and how risks can be reduced through mitigation and adaptation. It recognizes that risks of climate change will vary across regions and populations, through space and time, dependent on myriad factors including the extent of mitigation and adaptation

The Economics of 1.5°C Climate Change

The economic case for limiting warming to 1.5°C is unclear, due to manifold uncertainties. However, it cannot be ruled out that the 1.5°C target passes a cost-benefit test. Costs are almost certainly high: The median global carbon price in 1.5°C scenarios implemented by various energy models is more than US$100 per metric ton of CO2 in 2020, for example. Benefits estimates range from much lower than this to much higher. Some of these uncertainties may reduce in the future, raising the question of how to hedge in the near term. Maintaining an option on limiting warming to 1.5°C means targeting it now. Setting off with higher emissions will make 1.5°C unattainable quickly without recourse to expensive large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR), or solar radiation management (SRM), which can be cheap but poses ambiguous risks society seems unwilling to take. Carbon pricing could reduce mitigation costs substantially compared with ramping up the current patchwork of regulatory instruments. Nonetheless, a mix of policies is justified and technology-specific approaches may be required. It is particularly important to step up mitigation finance to developing countries, where emissions abatement is relatively cheap