| Date | May 2017 | Marks available | 2 | Reference code | 17M.2.SL.TZ0.3 |
| Level | Standard Level | Paper | Paper 2 | Time zone | Time zone 0 |
| Command term | Identify | Question number | 3 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
There are concerns that increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are leading to changes in the global climate.
Figure 3: CO2 emissions for select countries in 2007 and 2030 (Projected)
[Source: World Resources Institute,
http://www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/capita-co2-emissions-select-major-emitters-2007-and-2030-projected.
Used with permission.]
Calculate the projected percentage increase from 2007 to 2030 in CO2 emissions for Russia.
Outline how CO2 emissions may cause a change in the global climate.
Identify two possible reasons for the projected change in CO2 emissions for China.
Identify one reduction strategy that the United States might use to achieve its projected change in CO2 emissions.
Identify one adaptation strategy that could be used to reduce the impacts of climate change.
Explain how the ability to implement mitigation and adaptation strategies may vary from one country to another.
Markscheme
= 34% increase (allow 32−36%).
emissions (lead to higher concentration) of CO2 which is a greenhouse gas;
…causing greater absorption of infra-red/heat radiation and rise in global temperature;
…leading to increased evaporation/changing winds/shifting patterns of precipitation/droughts/extreme weather events/storms/hurricanes/El Niño.
growing number of fossil-fuelled vehicles/transport;
rapidly advancing economy/standard of living;
increase in fossil-fuelled power plants / increased industrialization;
increase in intensive/mechanized farming systems (in place of traditional);
burning of forests to clear land for agriculture.
Accept any other reasonable suggestions.
Award [1] for each correct reason identified, up to [2 max].
reduction of energy consumption/CO2 production through laws/taxes/education;
use of alternatives to fossil fuels;
CO2 removal though CCS;
afforestation / reducing rates of deforestation.
Accept any other reasonable suggestions, but they must be explicitly linked to reduction in C emissions ie not simply “improve public transport” or “recycling”.
flood defences (ie levees/dikes);
desalinization plants to replace freshwater losses;
planting of crops in previously unsuitable areas;
water conservation (eg restrictions on use of irrigation/sprinklers);
exploiting areas that have become more productive for crops through climate change;
developing (eg drought-resistant) crops better adapted to areas impacted by climate change;
green roof system that cools the building through evapotranspiration/reflection.
Accept any other reasonable suggestions.
Some strategies can be acknowledged as both adaptive and mitigating eg a “green roof” both reduces impact of climate change by cooling the building (adaptation) and reduces cause of climate change by reducing C emission (mitigation). Such suggestions should not be credited unless the link to reducing impact is made clear.
political will/pressure for change may differ due to some countries being more/less committed to their industrial lifestyles/economic growth / inhibited through political corruption;
finance/economics may/may not allow some countries to fund new technologies/infrastructures;
some countries may depend upon others for knowledge transfer/technological assistance to implement resolutions;
religious/political/cultural norms/education in some countries may promote/limit their perception of environmental threats/approach to management;
geographical location of some countries may place them at greater/more immediate risk from impacts of climate change (eg low-lying islands/tropical storm-prone nations) / or offer them greater opportunities for mitigation (eg available sources of alternative energy);
some countries may perceive greater immediate priorities eg war in Syria/poverty in Somalia.
Award [1] for each correct explanation, up to [4 max].
Accept other valid explanations of equivalent validity.
Do not accept eg “Economics” alone without an explanatory note.
Examiners report
The majority of candidates were unable to calculate a % increase.
Most could identify CO2 as a greenhouse gas …but a surprisingly large proportion associated its impact incorrectly with the ozone layer/depletion and UV radiation.
A considerable majority correctly identified changes shown in the data and offered valid explanations.
A considerable majority correctly identified changes shown in the data and offered valid explanations.
Only a minority of candidates could offer an example of adaptation strategies.
Most candidates identified one valid reason for differences between countries …incorrect answers were again too vague, e.g. ‘economics’; ‘politics’ …there needed to be at least a degree more explanation. Responses tended to focus on economic/technological differences rather than the geographical and cultural.
