With global climate change expediting unprecedented transformations across the globe, the Adirondack Park is no exception. The 1.5-degree increase in the world’s temperature is altering the park before our eyes. Historically, the landscape is a mix between the Appalachian mountains’ temperate/deciduous forest and Canada’s boreal spruce-fir forest(Adirondack Council ). However, these treelines are moving upward in elevation, reaching for the cooler temperatures they typically succeed in and leaving trees and shrubs to be displaced by forbs and mosses at alpine sites of the High Peaks (Berend, 2021). In addition, those plants that have not crept up the landscape are tending to flower earlier in the season, before the insects who pollinate them hatch. This phenomenon leads to the crucial plants of the High Peaks region achieving less pollination and, therefore, reproductive opportunity. Recently, in Bill McKibben’s seminar on climate change, he discussed how the rise in global temperatures likely would not stop for another 1.5-degree increase from current temperature. The climate in the Adirondacks is changing, and so is the park’s approach to climate action and conservation amidst such.
Figure 1. A photo of the Adirondacks (left) versus Richmond, VA(right). According to the Adirondack Council, the climate of the Adirondack Mountains will much more closely resemble Richmond, Virginia, by the end of the century. (Adirondack Council). (Photo Left,Photo Right)
The Adirondack Council played an instrumental role in advocating for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and the Federal Clean Power Plan (FCPP) (Adirondack Council). New York state, among ten other primarily New England states, has joined the RGGI, which aims to limit CO2 emissions from the power sector through a cap-and-trade process (CCCES, 2021). Fossil Fuel power plants with capacities greater than 25 megawatts are forced to auction for CO2 emission allowances. This lowers CO2 emissions by incentivizing to produce less CO2 while also stimulating the state economy, which receives money from these power plant auctions (CCES, 2021). Similarly, the FCPP aims to limit CO2 emissions across the country. With carbon emission limits, the plan is set to reduce 32% of the electric industry’s carbon emissions, with 870 million fewer tons of CO2 pollution by 2030 (NDRC, 2021). While these programs are helpful overall, the Adirondacks also call out for more intimate aid in saving the park. Regional institutions, like Middlebury College, are needed to provide expertise, manpower, and funding for the research into predicting how the Adirondack climate and conditions will change. There is no better way to protect the High Peaks than understanding their ecosystems and how they are likely to change.
Luckily the conservation of the park can be maintained and possibly increased by climate response tools. Mass re-forestation and habitat restoration support the natural wildlife of the park while also absorbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Roberts, 2020). The natural environment is one of the most effective ways to reduce CO2. It conserves the wild rather than posting solar panels, wind turbines, and electric dams throughout the park. These modern, manufactured forms of sustainable energy are fantastic in their respects and specific locations, but keeping in mind conserving the park’s “wildness,” restoring it to its former state is the best way to slow climate change.
“About Climate Change: Adirondack Council.” About Climate Change | Adirondack Council, www.adirondackcouncil.org/page/climate-change-88.html.
“Adirondack Mountains of Northern New York.” Official Adirondack Website | Your Ultimate Guide to the Adirondacks, visitadirondacks.com/.
Berend, Kevin. “Climate Change and the Future of Adirondack Alpine Zones: Adirondack Mountain Club.” Adirondack Mountain Club | Just Another WordPress Site, 26 Jan. 2021, www.adk.org/climate-change-the-future-of-adirondack-alpine-zones/.
“Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 16 June 2021, www.c2es.org/content/regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative-rggi/.
Roberts, Callum, et al. “Climate Change Mitigation and Nature Conservation Both Require Higher Protected Area Targets.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 27 Jan. 2020, royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0121.
September 29, 2017. “What Is the Clean Power Plan?” NRDC, 29 Jan. 2021, www.nrdc.org/stories/how-clean-power-plan-works-and-why-it-matters.
“Virginia.” Appalachian Regional Commission, 29 June 2021, www.arc.gov/virginia/.
I enjoyed reading your post Quincy. I found your last paragraph to be especially thought-provoking. I had not previously considered that although solar and wind power are better alternatives to conventional energy sources, they themselves might be worse than leaving the natural environment to work as an efficient carbon sink. It raises the question that where should solar and wind be put into use in the northeast if forested terrain is simply better for the environment? Is it fair to expect other areas of the country to produce energy for the northeast (and Adirondack Park in particular) since the land here is better served to be undeveloped so it can absorb carbon? Or should the people of the Park be invested in how their energy is produced? It seems that there are no perfect answers to the natural carbon sink/renewable energy debate, but it is very interesting and nuanced.