Climate change is the greatest threat facing human welfare. That we are the force behind it, willingly driving our world into a furnace, is ironic. And it is tragic that while we are aware of our actions and can predict impending disasters, we can scarcely act to change our course.
The question of whether or not actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are necessary was answered decades ago. Yet American energy business interests, rampant climate confusion and denial among the public, along with idiosyncrasies of the political system have left the United States in climate policy limbo. Legislative action at the federal level is not likely to pass in the foreseeable political future.
But eventually the United States will have to proceed aggressively with greenhouse gas emissions abatement. And by the time this happens there should be an arsenal of mitigation strategies ready for implementation. I envision a massive series of climate science and economic tests that will determine which methods are most cost-effective at emissions reduction.
A suite of solutions rather than one silver bullet will be necessary. I used to think that science had already solved the problem of climate change and that the work left to be done lay only in the realms of politics and economics. But scientists had only demonstrated the need to take action; much work is still needed to determine how we must act.
My research focus is on the radiative forcing of wetland restoration. According to the National Academy of Science report, “the potential to limit climate change through management of land and ocean ecosystems has not been thoroughly evaluated.” This statement certainly holds true for wetlands, which contain about one-third of the world's soil carbon despite only covering two percent of total land area. I hope to clarify whether or not restoration of wetlands deserves a place among other climate change mitigation strategies.
