Imagine you’re the captain of a sailboat cruising through ocean waters. The crew notices that water has started seeping through holes in your boat’s hull. Since they caught it early, you still have options. You could work to identify the leaks in the hull and patch them. Of course, then you’d also need to pump out the water already aboard. Regardless, it would make sense to have everyone put on their rubber boots to wade through the water. Or, you could turn your boat around and head for shore.

Mitigation vs. adaptation

Although not all of us will serve as captains of a sinking ship, we do all live in a world confronting the realities of climate change. That might feel overwhelming, but many different solutions are available to us. Some of them, like stopping the water from leaking into your ship, have the goal of lessening, or mitigating, the problem.

Climate change mitigation is how we reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thereby slowing and limiting climate change. This process is also commonly called decarbonization. Other solutions to the sinking-boat scenario, such as putting on boots or heading for shore, have a goal of responding or adapting to the problem to reduce its impact. Climate change adaptation is how we respond to climate change to reduce its impact on people, places, and ecosystems.

Climate change mitigation strategies are focused on one of two goals: reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere or collecting and storing greenhouse gases elsewhere through natural sinks or carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. Mitigation solutions include everything from renewable energy to electric cars to public transportation to meat alternatives. Mitigation strategies are also at the heart of most well- known goals surrounding climate change, like the international effort to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming, as set out in the Paris Agreement.

However, you might not have heard very much about climate change adaptation strategies. Adaptation strategies are often specific to local regions and communities. That’s because every region faces a unique set of environmental conditions and climate change impacts, and every community has a different set of resources available to them. Adaptation strategies are primarily focused on one or more of the following goals:

1. Reducing vulnerability—The level of exposure and sensitivity of a community to a disaster. For example, a community facing sea-level rise could restore coastal wetlands that act as a buffer to storm surges and so reduce vulnerability.
2. Increasing resilience—The capacity of a community to keep functioning during a disaster. Many strategies that reduce vulnerability also increase resilience. The community facing sea-level rise could relocate critical infrastructure—like energy generation plants or transportation networks—to higher ground to increase resilience.
3. Expanding adaptive capacity—The technical and social skills that help a community respond to a disaster. That same community facing sea-level rise could train people to protect their homes from intense flooding or to evacuate safely when needed, all of which expands adaptive capacity.

In pursuit of these goals, communities can adopt several adaptation strategies. Sometimes, it might mean building flood-resistant buildings in areas facing increased flood risk or expanding access to air conditioners to deal with extreme heat. Or communities might employ new methods of forest management, develop drought-resistant crops, or even migrate away from frequent disaster zones.

Where do mitigation and adaptation meet?

While mitigation and adaptation might seem like entirely separate types of climate change solutions with different goals, there are areas of overlap. Of course, how much adaptation is needed is dependent on how much mitigation we’re able to achieve. There are also some solutions and innovations that are helpful for both mitigation and adaptation.

For example, wetland restoration is the process of reintroducing wetland habitats to areas that have been developed for other land uses. Wetland restoration can be a form of mitigation since wetlands act as natural carbon sinks, pulling large amounts of carbon dioxide out of the air and storing it. But wetland restoration can also be a form of adaptation, as wetlands reduce the intensity and impact of storms and hurricanes that pass over them.

Some adaptation strategies might counteract mitigation efforts and vice versa. One example is that in responding to more extreme temperatures, many regions will expand their use of heating and cooling systems like air conditioners. There are many places that are already just too hot for people to survive without them. More air conditioners mean more electricity demand. And far too much of our electricity still comes from burning fossil fuels. Mitigation and adaptation strategies are often intricately interconnected.

Adaptation, mitigation, or both?

So, should we acknowledge that climate change is here and put all our efforts into adapting to the effects of climate change? Or should we focus our efforts on mitigation to reduce emissions as quickly as possible? Well, the reality is that we need to do both.

There isn’t one climate change “switch” that we can turn on or off. Climate change happens on a spectrum, and there’s a big difference in the extent of climate change. For example, the world looks a lot different at 1.5 degrees C of warming versus 2.0 degrees C and beyond. At 1.5 degrees C of warming, 14 percent of the world’s population will face a severe heatwave every five years. At 2.0 degrees C of warming, that percentage more than doubles to 37 percent of the world population. At 1.5 degrees C of warming, the average drought length will be around two months. At 2.0 degrees C, it is four months. These differences will determine whether individual people, communities, and ecosystems will be able to recover. The strategies needed to adapt to a 2.0 degrees C warmer world will need to be much more intense. That’s why mitigation is essential to dealing with climate change: the more we can mitigate emissions now, the less widespread its impact will be, and the less drastic measures we will need to adapt to a changing climate.

But we can’t focus exclusively on mitigation because we’re already seeing the effects of climate change across the globe. From increased storm frequency and severity to longer periods of drought and flooding, these effects are being felt right now—we can’t wait for the years or decades required for mitigation to be implemented. Communities need access to adaptation strategies. We are also seeing that climate change does not affect us all equally. Those hit hardest by the effects of climate change are often those who have contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation solutions are needed not only on a practical level but also on a moral level. If we were to focus on mitigation solutions and delay working on adaptation, the most vulnerable among us would be facing the worst climate change effects on their own. This would be a blatant injustice and an unwise strategy for long-term success.

As the captain of a leaking ship, you need to focus on both addressing the root cause or causes of the problem, the hole in the ship, and preparing for its longer-term effects if you are to protect your ship and your crew. The same is true for how we address climate change. We need to pursue both mitigation and adaptation solutions and understand how they are connected if we are to create a resilient, sustainable, and just future.