For decades, much of the climate conversation revolved around prevention. Governments, scientists and environmental organizations warned about rising greenhouse gas emissions and called for a transition away from fossil fuels. The goal was straightforward: reduce emissions enough to prevent the planet from warming beyond dangerous levels.
Around the world, communities are already experiencing consequences once described primarily as future risks. Heatwaves are becoming more intense, extreme rainfall is threatening cities, droughts are affecting agriculture and water supplies, and rising sea levels are putting coastal communities under increasing pressure.
The question is no longer how to stop climate change. It is also how to live in a world that is already changing. This is where two concepts have become central to climate policy: mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation means addressing the causes of climate change, primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting or expanding natural systems that absorb carbon. Adaptation, meanwhile, means adjusting societies, infrastructure, economies and ecosystems to the impacts of a changing climate.
In other words, mitigation tries to reduce the problem. Adaptation tries to reduce the damage. And increasingly, the world needs both.
According to Leandro Decla, a Geography professor and UNESP graduate, the two approaches should not be treated as competing solutions:
“Because adaptation cannot be the only answer. We can build flood barriers, change agricultural techniques and prepare cities for extreme heat, but there is a limit to how much we can adapt. Mitigation is what determines how severe the climate challenges of the future will be. The more we reduce emissions now, the more manageable adaptation becomes later”, he explains.
THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE: PREVENTION
Climate mitigation remains essential because every fraction of additional warming can increase risks to people and ecosystems.
The Paris Agreement established the international goal of holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. Countries have responded by creating Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, which outline their plans for reducing emissions and addressing climate impacts.
The latest UNFCCC synthesis of new NDCs found that nearly all participating countries included domestic mitigation measures. The new plans also show a growing emphasis on adaptation, with 73% of the NDCs containing an adaptation component. Some of the most important mitigation strategies include expanding renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, reducing deforestation, electrifying transportation, and changing industrial and agricultural practices. These measures target some of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions and are intended to slow the pace of global warming.
Solar and wind power, for example, have become increasingly important components of the global energy transition. Forest protection is also critical because ecosystems such as tropical forests store enormous amounts of carbon while supporting biodiversity and local communities.
But mitigation faces a difficult reality: climate systems respond to accumulated greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that even if emissions fall dramatically, some impacts will continue because of warming that has already occurred.
WELCOME TO THE AGE OF ADAPTATION
Imagine a city where summers are becoming dangerously hot. Mitigation might mean replacing fossil-fuel-powered electricity with renewable energy to reduce future emissions.
Adaptation could mean planting trees to provide shade, redesigning buildings to keep indoor temperatures lower, creating cooling centers, improving heat-warning systems, and changing public-health policies to protect vulnerable populations.
“Adaptation can sound like a very technical concept, but it can be extremely practical”, says Decla. “It can mean planting trees in neighborhoods that experience extreme heat, changing building standards, improving drainage, creating emergency shelters, protecting water sources or changing the way agriculture is practiced. Adaptation is essentially about asking: ‘What is already changing, and what do we need to change with it?’”.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme’s Adaptation Gap Report 2025, countries have made progress in adaptation planning and implementation. More than 1,600 adaptation actions have been reported, particularly in areas such as biodiversity, agriculture, water and infrastructure. Most countries also have at least one national adaptation policy, strategy or plan.
But planning does not automatically mean protection: One of the biggest obstacles is money.
UNEP estimates that developing countries will need between US$310 billion and US$365 billion every year by 2035 to adapt to climate change. Yet international public adaptation finance for developing countries was only US$26 billion in 2023. That means adaptation needs are roughly 12 to 14 times larger than current international public flows.
The gap is enormous. And it raises an uncomfortable question: who gets to be resilient?
CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALSO A QUESTION OF INEQUALITY
Climate change does not affect everyone in the same way. A wealthy city may have the resources to reinforce infrastructure, improve drainage systems, establish emergency shelters and develop sophisticated early-warning systems. A poorer community may struggle to rebuild after a flood — or even to evacuate safely.
This difference is particularly important in developing countries, many of which have contributed relatively little to historical greenhouse gas emissions but face some of the most severe consequences of climate change.
“Because climate vulnerability is not distributed equally across space”, Decla explains. “Geography teaches us that where you live, how your city is organized, your income, your access to infrastructure and even your political representation can determine how exposed you are to an environmental risk. A flood is a natural event, but a disaster is also a social phenomenon”.
The same environmental event can therefore have completely different consequences depending on where it happens. “Two neighborhoods can experience the same rainfall and have completely different outcomes. One may have drainage, green spaces, good housing and emergency services. Another may have informal housing, poor sanitation and limited access to transportation. The rainfall is the same, but the vulnerability is not”, he says.
And there is another layer to the conversation: gender. Women and girls are often disproportionately affected by climate-related disasters, because existing social and economic inequalities can limit access to resources, information, mobility and decision-making. At the same time, women are increasingly recognized as important leaders in climate adaptation and disaster resilience.
A 2025 UNDRR discussion on women and climate resilience highlighted the importance of women’s leadership in disaster-risk reduction and adaptation, emphasizing that structural inequalities can leave women more exposed to climate impacts while also limiting their participation in decision-making.
That creates a paradox: the people most affected by climate decisions are not always the people making them:
“We need to stop talking about climate change only as an environmental issue,” Decla says. “It is also an issue of housing, transportation, health, employment, food, water and inequality. Climate change exposes problems that already exist in society”.
“THIS WILL AFFECT EVERYONE SOONER OR LATER”
The effects of climate change are global, but they are experienced at a deeply personal level. For Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, the human dimension of climate change is impossible to ignore.
In a 2025 United Nations interview, Saulo described seeing people suffer as climate impacts affect access to food and water. Her warning was direct: the consequences of climate change will eventually affect everyone.
“We can see how many people are suffering… We can see that people are running out of food, are running out of water, and the real narrative is that this will affect everyone sooner or later”, she says.
A degree of warming is a scientific measurement. Behind that measurement, however, are people dealing with heat, displacement, food insecurity, damaged homes and disrupted livelihoods.
FROM CLIMATE FORECASTS TO EARLY WARNINGS
Early-warning systems can give communities time to evacuate before a hurricane, prepare for extreme rainfall or protect themselves from dangerous heat.
Technology is making these systems increasingly sophisticated, but technology alone cannot solve the problem. An effective warning system requires scientific monitoring, communication infrastructure, emergency planning and, most importantly, people who can actually act on the warning. A text message telling someone that a flood is approaching is only useful if that person has somewhere safe to go.
This illustrates a broader lesson about adaptation: resilience is not a single invention. It depends on a system in which technology, infrastructure, public services and communities work together.
DESIGNING CITIES FOR A WARMER FUTURE
Urban areas can experience temperatures significantly higher than surrounding regions because asphalt, concrete, and buildings absorb and retain heat. This phenomenon, known as the urban heat-island effect, can make heatwaves particularly dangerous.
More trees and green spaces can provide shade and help reduce temperatures. Green roofs can help buildings manage heat and rainfall. Better drainage systems can reduce flood risks. Public transportation can improve mobility during extreme weather. Buildings can be designed or renovated to remain cooler without relying entirely on air conditioning.
For Decla, these changes require cities to reconsider what they consider “infrastructure”:
“We need to rethink the idea that every available space has to be covered by concrete. Trees, parks, permeable surfaces, rivers and wetlands are not obstacles to urban development. They are infrastructure. They help control temperature, absorb rainwater and improve people’s quality of life”, he says.
UNEP’s 2025 Adaptation Gap Report notes that urban nature-based solutions can reduce ambient temperatures by more than 1°C on average, while investments in coastal protection can prevent substantial future damage.
The message is increasingly clear: adaptation does not always mean building bigger walls. Sometimes, it means rebuilding our relationship with nature.
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND WATER
Farmers around the world are dealing with changing rainfall patterns, droughts, heat stress, floods and shifting growing seasons. Adaptation can involve drought-resistant crops, improved irrigation, soil conservation, diversified farming systems and better climate information for farmers. Water management is equally important. A changing climate can intensify both extremes: too much water during floods and too little during droughts.
For communities that depend directly on agriculture and local water systems, climate adaptation can determine whether a family can continue to grow food, maintain an income or remain in its home.
YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT JUST FUTURE LEADERS
From youth climate movements to local resilience projects, young people are participating in advocacy, environmental education, scientific research and community initiatives.
The United Nations has increasingly emphasized the importance of meaningful youth participation in climate adaptation. A 2025 regional adaptation dialogue in Asia-Pacific, for example, focused specifically on strengthening youth engagement in national adaptation plans and climate-resilience strategies.
“Young people have something very important: they will live with the consequences of decisions being made today. But I don’t think young people should only be described as ‘the future.’ They are already part of the present. They are researchers, journalists, activists, engineers, teachers, politicians and community leaders”, Decla says.
For young people who feel that individual actions are too small to make a difference, he also emphasizes the importance of looking beyond personal responsibility.
“Individual actions matter, but we shouldn’t place the entire responsibility on individuals. You can recycle, reduce consumption or use public transportation, and those choices are valuable. But climate change also requires structural changes. We need to ask who produces energy, how cities are planned, how governments invest money, and which communities have access to decision-making”.
ADAPTATION SHOULD NOT BECOME AN EXCUSE FOR INACTION
There is, however, an important danger in talking about adaptation. If the world focuses only on adapting to climate change, it risks accepting increasingly severe warming as inevitable. That would be a mistake. Adaptation has limits.
A community can build stronger infrastructure, improve early-warning systems and change agricultural practices. But there are physical, financial and social limits to how much societies can adapt.
THE PRICE OF RESILIENCE
UNEP’s 2025 report estimates that adaptation finance needs in developing countries are at least twelve times greater than current international public adaptation finance flows. It also warns that the global goal of doubling international public adaptation finance to approximately US$40 billion annually by 2025 will not be achieved under current trends.
In other words, the world is learning how to adapt faster than it is funding adaptation. That imbalance could become increasingly expensive. Investing in resilience may seem costly today, but the cost of rebuilding after disasters, relocating communities, losing agricultural production or dealing with climate-related health crises can be far greater.
The choice is not between spending money and saving money. It is between investing now or paying more later.
“I would like us to move beyond the idea that climate change is only about saving the planet,” Decla says. “The planet will continue to exist. The real question is what kind of conditions we are creating for human beings and other forms of life. Climate change is about the quality of life we are willing to protect.”
WHAT COMES NEXT?
The climate crisis has changed the meaning of prevention. It no longer means simply trying to preserve the world exactly as it is. It means reducing emissions as quickly as possible while preparing communities for the changes that are already underway.
It also requires something less measurable but equally important: imagination. What should a resilient city look like? How can food systems survive prolonged drought? How can coastal communities remain safe? How can climate policies protect women, children, Indigenous communities and low-income populations?
And perhaps most importantly, how can adaptation be designed not simply to survive climate change, but to create healthier, fairer and more sustainable societies?
For Decla, the answer begins with recognizing that resilience is not exclusively a technological challenge: “Adaptation is not only about technology. It is also about creativity, cooperation and knowledge. Communities have always adapted to environmental changes. What we need now is to combine traditional knowledge, scientific knowledge and public policy. The challenge is enormous, but we are not powerless.”
The climate crisis is no longer a distant scenario. It is a reality that different communities are experiencing in different ways and at different speeds.
The article above was edited by Isabella Simões.
Liked this type of content? Check Her Campus Cásper Líbero home page for more!