What is Climate Mitigation?

What is Climate Mitigation?

Climate mitigation encompasses strategies and actions designed to reduce the sources of greenhouse gas emissions or enhance the sinks that absorb them. Unlike adaptation, which focuses on managing unavoidable impacts, mitigation targets the root causes of climate change. The IPCC defines it as human intervention to reduce emissions sources and enhance carbon sinks, including forests, soils, and oceans.

Why It Matters

The economic case for climate mitigation has shifted dramatically. The Stern Review estimated that unmitigated climate change could cost 5–20% of global GDP annually, while mitigation costs sit around 1–2% of GDP. That cost-benefit gap has only widened as climate damages accelerate. Companies that fail to integrate mitigation into strategy face escalating regulatory, physical, and transition risks.

Regulatory pressure is intensifying across jurisdictions. The EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which entered its transitional phase in 2023, imposes carbon costs on imports of steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, and electricity. California's cap-and-trade program covers roughly 85% of the state's emissions. These mechanisms are reshaping competitive dynamics for carbon-intensive industries.

Investor expectations have followed suit. The Net-Zero Asset Managers initiative, representing over $65 trillion in assets under management, commits signatories to supporting net-zero emissions by 2050. Climate Action 100+ engages the world's largest corporate emitters. For companies seeking capital, credible mitigation plans are no longer optional — they're a prerequisite.

Beyond compliance, mitigation creates tangible business value. Energy efficiency measures typically deliver 15–30% cost savings. Renewable energy procurement hedges against fossil fuel price volatility. Companies with strong mitigation track records attract talent, particularly among younger workers who prioritize employers aligned with their values.

How It Works / Key Components

Mitigation strategies fall into three broad categories: reducing emissions from energy systems, transforming industrial processes, and enhancing natural and technological carbon sinks. Each requires distinct approaches and timelines.

Energy system decarbonization remains the highest-impact lever. Power generation accounts for roughly 25% of global emissions. The levelized cost of solar PV has dropped 89% since 2010, making renewables the cheapest source of new electricity in most markets. Electrification of transport, heating, and industrial processes then multiplies the impact of clean grids. Corporate power purchase agreements (PPAs) have emerged as a primary mechanism for large buyers to drive new renewable capacity.

Industrial mitigation poses steeper challenges. Cement, steel, and chemicals production involve process emissions that can't be eliminated through fuel switching alone. Solutions include alternative chemistries (e.g., supplementary cementite materials), green hydrogen for steel reduction, and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). These technologies are scaling but remain 2–5x more expensive than conventional processes in most cases.

Nature-based solutions — reforestation, mangrove restoration, soil carbon sequestration, and peatland protection — offer co-benefits for biodiversity and water systems. However, permanence and additionality concerns have dogged offset markets. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) released its Core Carbon Principles in 2023 to address quality concerns, establishing assessment frameworks that distinguish high-integrity credits from greenwashing vehicles.

Climate Mitigation in Practice

Microsoft committed $1 billion to its Climate Innovation Fund, targeting carbon removal technologies including direct air capture and biochar. The company plans to be carbon negative by 2030 and to remove all historical emissions by 2050. Ørsted, formerly Danish Oil and Natural Gas, completed one of the most aggressive energy transitions in corporate history, divesting its fossil fuel business entirely and becoming the world's largest offshore wind developer.

At the municipal level, Copenhagen aims for carbon neutrality by 2025 through district heating powered by biomass and waste, cycling infrastructure that handles 49% of commuter trips, and building efficiency standards that cut energy demand per square meter by 20% since 2010.

Council Fire's Approach

Council Fire works with organizations to develop mitigation strategies grounded in science-based targets and operational reality. Our climate resilience practice helps clients identify emission reduction pathways that align with sector-specific decarbonization trajectories, while our stakeholder strategy work ensures mitigation commitments are communicated credibly to investors, regulators, and communities. We specialize in connecting mitigation actions to ocean health — particularly blue carbon ecosystems — where emission reductions and biodiversity co-benefits intersect.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between climate mitigation and climate adaptation?

Mitigation reduces or prevents greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change itself. Adaptation adjusts systems, infrastructure, and behaviors to cope with climate impacts that are already occurring or locked in. Effective climate strategy requires both — mitigation to limit future warming, and adaptation to manage present and near-term risks.

How do companies set credible mitigation targets?

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) provides the most widely recognized framework. Companies set near-term targets (5–10 years) aligned with limiting warming to 1.5°C, covering Scope 1, 2, and increasingly Scope 3 emissions. As of 2025, over 7,000 companies have committed to SBTi, though scrutiny of target quality and follow-through continues to intensify.

Are carbon offsets a valid mitigation strategy?

Offsets can complement direct emission reductions but should not substitute for them. The SBTi requires companies to reduce at least 90% of emissions before using removals for residual balancing. High-quality offsets — verified under standards like Gold Standard or Verra with ICVCM alignment — can fund legitimate climate action, but the market has faced significant credibility challenges around additionality and permanence.