Mitigation

The terms mitigation and adaptation have become like the peanut butter and jelly of the climate change field: you rarely hear one mentioned without the other. And, for good reason. While the words each have a distinct meaning, they have a complementary connection when it comes to reversing climate change and repairing its impact.

Mitigation is generally more proactive than adaptation as it seeks upstream solutions to the causes of climate change. All around us, we can see mitigation at work in our communities and world. We build bike lanes on urban streets so that commuters can use pedal power instead of fossil fuel to reach their destination. On roof tops and open spaces, we erect solar panels and wind turbines to produce clean energy without greenhouse gas emissions. At the store, we buy local produce to reduce the “food miles” that accrue when shoppers buy grapes flown in from Chile, instead of from a nearby farm. At the policy level, we encourage elected officials to support international efforts such as the Paris Agreement that set global limits on greenhouse gas emissions. And everywhere in between, we plant trees and protect forests, tundra and even grasslands so that they’ll sequester the carbon that fuels climate change. 

When compared to mitigation, adaptation can seem more passive as it involves actions taken in response to climate impacts that already exist. But that doesn’t make adaptation any less useful or innovative. On Bainbridge Island in Washington, workers removed concrete bulkheads, a manmade solution to shore erosion that actually worsens the problem by diverting wave damage elsewhere. Instead, they planted natural vegetation as an adaptive measure to rising seas, since it acts an absorbent buffer. In Nebraska, practices such as thinning forests and building firebreaks were once unthinkable. Now, land trusts allow them in their conservation easements. This, due to climate-change driven droughts that made forest fires rage across the state. Through such timely adaptation, land trusts can make changes to protect ecosystems in real time.

Because mitigation reflects a more global view, a land trust may wonder if the concept isn’t too macro to serve their micro purposes. (After all, land trust staff rarely attend UN conferences on climate change.) Yet in practice, mitigation can work at a manageable scale to help land trusts attain conservation goals. Scientists have identified a set of 20 conservation, restoration and improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. These natural climate solutions are cost-effective, available now, have significant co-benefits for water quality and wildlife habitat, and if fully deployed, could mitigate up to 21% of the country’s net annual greenhouse gas emissions. Examples include reforestation, avoided forest and grassland conversion, coastal restoration and agricultural practices that increase soil carbon. For instance, the Hawaiian Islands Trust practiced mitigation when they protected undeveloped waterfront property that was slated to become a golf course development. As sea levels rise, however, restoring the preserve’s ecological function makes better environmental and economic sense. Better that then watch million-dollar homes pitch into the Pacific Ocean.

To their advantage, most land trusts have already developed the organizational muscles needed for mitigation work. Particularly in the areas of strategic investment and land management. They can flex these muscles to acquire critical land imperiled by development or to engage in regional planning like the Jefferson Land Trust has done. Some groups, such as the Vermont Land Trust, have crafted conservation ag easements that allow small-scale renewable energy technology and infrastructure projects. These not only mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but model good stewardship practices for others to follow. As rural folks know, no one can convince a farmer to adapt a new ag practice as well as another farmer can.

In the same vein, land trusts can practice what they preach. They can mount solar panels on their office buildings, buy electric or hybrid vehicles, add bike racks at preserves, aim for carbon-neutrality in their strategic plans. There’s even new guidance on how land trusts can assess sustainable energy projects with sound conservation goals in mind. Increasingly, mitigation work will require land trusts to learn the pros and cons of renewable energy issues. 

Importantly, mitigation allows land trusts to extend their impact beyond the usual bucks and acres metrics. Through the work of mitigation, land trusts reduce the vulnerability of natural areas and working lands under their care. Mitigation efforts can also make efforts to fight climate change seem local, positive and achievable. However, to attract more support for their cause, land trusts need to communicate their climate goals effectively. Here, talking with people and not at them works best. Consider how the Maine Coast Heritage Trust used politically neutral language and avoided jargon with their Marshes for Tomorrow initiative.   

Is mitigation right for your land trust? In the right time and place it likely will be, as the land trusts below have proven. With mitigation and adaptation as the peanut butter and jelly, projects like these can become the daily bread of your conservation efforts.