In the context of positive and negative feedbacks in the earth system and climate change:
I feel that mitigation is something that has to be actively done by someone, but since I am neither a linguist nor a native speaker, I can't properly argue for or against it.

Is the usage of "mitigation" restricted to (human) actors? Or can mitigation be a passive effect of natural processes?

2 Answers 2


Mitigation does not need a human actor. Consider the following sentence.

The unseasonal rains mitigated the problem of wildfires.

  • 3
    I found another: "Beavers can help mitigate the effects of climate change"
    – GEdgar
    Oct 14, 2022 at 11:45
  • It is a good example sentence.
    – banuyayi
    Oct 14, 2022 at 12:33

Example sentences in respected online dictionaries contain few if any examples of a force / natural cause rather than an agent (with volition) as the actor, in sentences containing the related verb. In fact, most example sentences contain a covert agent:


  • Only international co-operation can mitigate environmental damage. [Macmillan]

However, sentences with a non-volitional actor (not even in the bakground) are not uncommon; here is an example from an article in The National Library of Medicine by Toll-Riera, Olombrada, Castro-Giner and Wagner:

  • It involved genomic changes that occurred in a highly parallel fashion and mitigated the effects of protein misfolding.

And another example from Pruffle.mit.ed:

  • Le Chatelier's principle says that a system will respond to mitigate the effect of an implied stimulus.

The use of the noun mitigation mirrors that of the verb.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.