Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Module 1 · Unit 2 · 6 minutes

2.2 Case studies: ecological drivers

These questions are for practice. You can retry them as often as you need; they do not contribute to a course grade.

Case study

Case Study 1: Delaying Climate Action

A national government acknowledges the risks of climate change but decides to postpone major climate policies for the next 15 years. Policymakers argue that rapid investments in renewable energy, building renovations, and low-carbon transportation would be too expensive in the short term. Instead, they prioritize immediate economic growth and plan to address climate change later when more advanced technologies become available.

Over the following decades, the country experiences more frequent heatwaves, severe droughts, flooding events, and forest fires. Agricultural yields decline in several regions, insurance costs increase significantly, and critical infrastructure requires expensive repairs after extreme weather events. As climate impacts intensify, the government is forced to invest heavily in adaptation measures such as flood protection, emergency response systems, and water management infrastructure. At the same time, reducing emissions becomes more difficult and costly because carbon-intensive infrastructure remains in operation.

Many experts argue that earlier action could have reduced both climate damages and the long-term costs of the transition.

Which of the following is a likely economic consequence of delaying climate action?

Why can early investment in climate mitigation be more cost-effective than waiting?

What does the case illustrate about the relationship between mitigation and adaptation?

Case study

Case Study 2: Refrigerants and High-GWP Greenhouse Gases

A homeowner decides to install a new split air-conditioning system that uses HFC-32 as a refrigerant. Although the system is energy efficient, HFC-32 has a Global Warming Potential (GWP100) of 771. The European Union plans to phase out many HFC-based systems and promote natural refrigerants such as propane or carbon dioxide.

Why can refrigerants have a significant impact on climate change even when used in relatively small quantities?

Which is a potential advantage of switching to natural refrigerants such as propane or CO₂?

What is an important challenge when replacing high-GWP refrigerants with natural alternatives?

menu