English Version(O conteúdo que você vai ler a seguir é feito totalmente por humanos, e para humanos)
Understanding what Climate Adaptation means still carries many stigmas. From public invisibility to catastrophic views, the agenda that should be a top priority at COP30 is still seen as antagonistic to mitigation — when, in fact, it is its ally; and often interpreted as a sign of defeat — when, in practice, it reflects maturity and resilience from those who acknowledge that the world has already changed.
In Climate Adaptation – A Guide for Journalistic Coverage, we gather and deconstruct the 10 myths about adaptation. The content, grounded in data and real examples, is a valuable resource to reorient reporting practices, as well as an important tool for everyone seeking to strengthen the flow of climate information — across digital networks, knowledge production, formal dialogues, and informal conversations.
Check out the full content and, to help spread these messages, feel free to use the carousel template with ready-to-share slides featuring the 10 myths about adaptation. Just make sure to credit Talanoa (@institutotalanoa).
1. “Adaptation is for those who have given up on mitigation.”
Adaptation is not a substitute for mitigation. Cutting emissions remains indispensable to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change. Even if we succeed in limiting warming to 1.5°C, we will still face more floods, heatwaves, and ecosystem losses. That is why we need both strategies simultaneously: mitigation to slow down the problem, and Adaptation to cope with the impacts that are already unavoidable.
Moreover, mitigation itself depends on Adaptation. In 2024, heatwaves drove up demand for cooling so much that it accounted for 50 percent of the growth in emissions in the global power sector (IEA). Without power grids prepared for extreme heat and without efficient cooling systems, the gains from mitigation are lost. The same applies to roads, ports, and housing: if they are not resilient, the energy transition becomes vulnerable to disasters and cannot hold.
In a world that has already warmed, Adaptation is not resignation, surrender, or defeatism. It is the precondition for mitigation to succeed.
2. “We can adapt to 4°C of global warming.”
Adaptation has limits. Even today, at around 1.3°C of warming, those limits are already being exceeded in many places — coral reefs cannot survive repeated marine heatwaves, crops fail under prolonged drought, coastal communities losing land to rising seas.
According to the IPCC, with every fraction of a degree, the effectiveness of Adaptation measures declines. There are still scenarios where Adaptation can make a real difference: around 1.5°C, we can reduce significant risks if we act swiftly and at scale. At 2°C, costs increase dramatically, and some limits become insurmountable. Beyond that point, the space for Adaptation narrows sharply — no infrastructure, technology, or financial resource can prevent massive humanitarian crises and irreversible losses in a 4°C world.
Adaptation is not limitless. We can adapt to some impacts at 1.5°C, and with great difficulty at 2°C, but beyond that, losses only grow larger.
3. “Adaptation is a license to keep using fossil fuels and delay the transition.”
Adaptation has clear boundaries and cannot be hijacked as an excuse to extend dependence on oil, gas, and coal. The IPCC shows that there is no level of Adaptation sufficient for a world that warms by 3°C or 4°C. Turning Adaptation into a “license for fossil fuels” is a distortion of reality: the longer we take to cut emissions, the more costly, difficult, and eventually impossible Adaptation becomes. Science is clear — only rapid and deep mitigation keeps Adaptation viable.
The energy transition will only succeed if it is also resilient. Without Adaptation, the decarbonization process itself becomes fragile. In Brazil, for instance, declining rainfall has strained hydropower generation. During droughts, the system relies on thermoelectric plants, which emit more and move in the opposite direction of the transition. If we fail to adapt the energy sector to extreme heat — through efficient cooling and stronger grids — mitigation gains will be lost.
The same applies to infrastructure. Brazil’s 2-billion-dollar investment in resilient highways is projected to prevent 47 billion dollars in losses (World Bank). Without such Adaptation measures, even clean-energy investments are at risk, since a resilient infrastructure is required to access markets at disastrous events.
Adaptation also strengthens financial systems. In the United States, homes built to resilient codes have shown 50 percent lower mortgage default rates after hurricanes (CoreLogic), which helps maintain stability for banks and investors — a key condition for sustaining the transition over time.
Far from delaying the transition, Adaptation enables it: it reduces systemic risks, protects assets, and gives solidity to the path toward a fossil-free future.
4. “We don’t need to adapt now — Adaptation is only for the future.”
One in every five people on the planet already feels daily the strong effects of climate change (Climate Central). Between 2000 and 2019, climate-related disasters affected an average of 3 billion people and caused economic losses of about 2.97 trillion dollars (UNDRR). In 2024, disasters cost over 320 billion dollars — nearly 40 percent above what was once considered “normal.” In the first quarter of 2025 alone, losses reached 162 billion dollars, including 40 billion from the Los Angeles Palisades wildfires — the most expensive wildfire event in history.
The numbers make it clear: Adaptation is not something for later. For those facing droughts, floods, and landslides today, the absence of Adaptation is already undermining well-being.
5. “Adaptation is intangible.”
Climate disasters are visible because they destroy homes and infrastructure all at once. Adaptation measures, on the other hand, often go unnoticed precisely because they work. Early-warning systems quietly save thousands of lives. Restored mangroves prevent storms from causing catastrophic damage. Building codes reduce collapses during hurricanes.
The absence of headlines does not mean the absence of impact. The challenge is that Adaptation is less “spectacular” than a disaster, but its effects are concrete and measurable. Journalists can help make this invisible materiality visible — showing that Adaptation saves lives and reduces losses every single day.
6. “Only the most vulnerable need to adapt.”
It is true that economically vulnerable communities, Indigenous peoples, coastal residents, and small farmers are among the most exposed — but believing that only they need to adapt is misleading and even dangerous.
First, because climate change already affects critical infrastructure and entire economies. If we fail to adapt our cities and energy systems, the energy transition itself becomes more vulnerable.
Second, so-called “less vulnerable” countries and groups are also paying the price. Even in rich countries, lack of Adaptation leads to severe economic losses.
Third, global value chains connect us all. A drought in India or flooding in Brazil can disrupt food, input, and energy supplies worldwide. In other words, vulnerability is unequal, but impact is shared.
Treating Adaptation as a problem “only for the vulnerable” is a myth that obscures systemic risks. The difference is that some have more resources to protect themselves, while others face immediate risks without safety nets. Neglecting this reality perpetuates inequality and ignores the fact that climate impacts are ultimately systemic.
7. “Adaptation is too expensive.”
The IPCC shows that many Adaptation measures are “no-regret” options because they deliver immediate returns — fewer economic losses, greater resilience, and social and environmental co-benefits — even if climate impacts turn out to be less severe than expected.
Improving building codes, expanding early-warning systems, restoring coastal ecosystems, diversifying water sources, or upgrading agricultural infrastructure are classic examples. Even if future impacts were smaller than projected, these actions would still pay off through improved safety, reduced losses, and social and economic benefits.
In practice, this means that Adaptation is never a sunk cost — it is an investment that always pays off. For example, in Vietnam, communities that restored mangroves cut dike maintenance costs by 7.3 million dollars per year while protecting themselves from storms and creating new livelihoods.
The Global Commission on Adaptation estimates that investing in resilience can yield returns between 2:1 and 10:1. In other words, every dollar invested generates multiple economic and social benefits.
While the costs of Adaptation rise as global warming advances, the greatest costs come not from adapting, but from delaying mitigation. If temperatures exceed 2°C, many Adaptation limits will be breached, and solutions will become more expensive, less effective, or even unfeasible. The IPCC is clear: only rapid and deep mitigation keeps Adaptation possible and financially viable.
Far from being “too costly,” Adaptation is a smart and urgent investment. The real risk lies in waiting — because the longer we take to cut emissions, the more expensive and difficult Adaptation becomes.
8. “Adaptation is a local issue.”
It is true that climate impacts manifest in specific places — a flood in a city, a drought in a farming region, coastal erosion in a community by the sea. But saying that Adaptation is only local is a reductionist and misleading idea.
Local impacts have global consequences. A drought in India can interrupt rice exports, affecting food prices across continents. Floods in Brazil can paralyze global supply chains for soy, minerals, and energy. In other words, a lack of Adaptation in one place can reverberate throughout the world.
Interdependence demands coordination. Systems of energy, transport, trade, and health are globally interconnected. Adapting a power plant or a port is a local act, but without international networks of finance, insurance, trade, and cooperation, resilience cannot be sustained.
Climate diplomacy reflects this reality. The IPCC itself stresses that Adaptation has local, national, and global dimensions. This is why countries compete for access to international Adaptation finance — because local failures ultimately generate transnational costs.
Adaptation begins in the territory, but it does not end there. It is local in action and global in consequence. Treating Adaptation merely as a “local problem” is another myth — one that hides the interdependence of the global economy and the need for international solidarity.
9. “The decline in deaths from extreme weather proves that humanity is successfully adapting.”
Vulnerability is actually growing, even in wealthy countries — where infrastructure, healthcare, and safety nets are presumed to be strong enough to protect people.
A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) analyzed 50 years of data across 21 types of climate impacts and found that in three-quarters of cases, there has been no real Adaptation. A hurricane or heatwave today causes roughly the same level of damage as it did decades ago, despite more technology, wealth, and supposed protections.
There are some exceptions, but they are few: gains in maize production in the United States, wheat in Europe, and lower heat-related mortality in certain European countries. In the U.S., heatwaves have shown a weaker correlation with income and fewer associated deaths or violent crimes. But these represent only six out of 21 cases studied — small victories against a backdrop of overall stagnation.
The implication is clear: if we are already struggling with 1.3°C of warming, scenarios of 2.5°C to 3°C by the end of the century could bring devastating impacts far beyond our current adaptive capacity.
10. “The private sector isn’t interested in Adaptation.”
The idea that the private sector has no interest in Adaptation does not hold up when we look at real incentives. Companies, banks, and insurers have already realized that investing in resilience protects their assets, reduces risks, and yields tangible returns.
The main motivation is asset protection. Factories, warehouses, roads, and power grids are all exposed. Without Adaptation, extreme weather can shut down entire operations. The World Bank illustrates this clearly: Brazil’s 2-billion-dollar investment in resilient road infrastructure is expected to prevent about 47 billion dollars in future losses.
Another driver is business continuity. Flooded cities, blocked ports, and unstable power grids interrupt global supply chains. That is why the Port of Rotterdam, one of the largest in the world, has already invested billions in coastal defenses against sea-level rise — ensuring that trade continues even during more intense storms.
Financial risk management is another factor. Better Adaptation means lower risk for banks and investors, smaller insurance premiums, and greater stability in financial markets.
The private sector is also driven by competitiveness and market opportunity. Multinationals such as Nestlé and Olam are investing in drought-resistant varieties of cocoa and coffee to secure a steady supply of key commodities. Similarly, tech companies and startups are offering innovative solutions — such as the use of drones to mitigate flood risk in Cameroon — attracting impact investment capital.
Finally, there is regulatory and reputational pressure. Companies that fail to incorporate Adaptation expose themselves to market losses as investors and governments increasingly demand clear climate-risk management plans. Those that move early are seen as safer, more resilient, and capable of attracting cheaper, long-term capital.
The return on investment in Adaptation is therefore clear. The Global Commission on Adaptation estimates that investing 1.8 trillion U.S. dollars across five key sectors by 2030 could generate 7.1 trillion dollars in net benefits — from higher agricultural productivity to fewer deaths and diseases.
In short: the private sector invests in Adaptation because it is both good risk management and good business.
