Act collectively on climate change

Adaptation means adjusting to the consequences of climate change. There is no part of the world or population that is immune from these consequences. First, everyone feels the efforts to decarbonize the economy through the prices of fuel and the technologies we use. Secondly, we face the impacts of the changing climate itself: extreme weather, gradual changes in nature and infrastructure, and direct effects on people and their health.

Social capital means the networks and interactions people have in their everyday lives. Unlike standard capital, it does not depreciate over time; the more we invest in these networks, the greater they become rather than actually degrade. When faced with difficulties, people turn to their friends, neighbors, and networks. This inherent ability to help others within our communities is a major resource in adapting to climate change.

Knowledge about the consequences of weather-related extremes is incredibly important. There will always be uncertainty because climate change is fundamentally indeterminate, involving both human actions and the Earth's physical and biological systems. Even when risks are known, the major barriers to action tend to be inertia within social, economic and political systems. The risks to the coastal areas of Louisiana and New Orleans were known for decades. The danger of the levees being overtopped by major hurricane surges coming from the sea, due to storms in the Gulf of Mexico, was very well known but not acted upon.

One of the key principles that has emerged in adaptation research is how people are attached to, and adapt to, the places they live in—places that give them meaning. One of the key values in adaptation is the importance of place, and our capacity to feel empathy for the places that matter to us. These are places that carry meaning through social relationships, as well as physical and even spiritual connections. This emphasis on place, and on place-based adaptation, is critical to how we address climate change and organize ourselves. The more people recognise that the places they value are at risk, the more likely they are to act—both individually and collectively—to maintain those places.

When we look specifically at flood risk, one key dilemma is how to strengthen social capital and support communities in managing these risks themselves. These risks are often best understood locally—through direct experience of what happens in specific places, and through the collective memory of those who live there. The dilemma, then, is to enable communities to help themselves. Our work with flood-affected communities shows that they possess significant local knowledge and are often best organised to respond in the immediate aftermath and during recovery. The benefits of such community action can significantly reduce the worst impacts of trauma and help ease the mental health burden on affected populations.

This phenomenon—of communities failing to adapt, both in advance and in response to weather-related extremes—is global. It is occurring across both the Global South and the Global North. The reasons are well understood and broadly similar: set of vested interests acting as barriers to action, lack of knowledge about what actions to take, and insufficient awareness of the solutions available and how readily they can be implemented for collective benefit. This has led to what is often described as an "adaptation deficit" worldwide. Yet there is no fundamental reason for this deficit to persist—at least none that cannot be overcome through positive action with wide-ranging benefits for society.

One of the greatest misconceptions about climate change adaptation is that it will happen automatically—that it will be relatively easy because climate change is expected to unfold gradually over decades. There is an assumption that technologically advanced societies, equipped with strong scientific knowledge and robust infrastructure, will be insulated from the worst impacts, and that the transition will be smooth. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the risks involved. It also places already marginalised groups at greater risk, as they are more exposed and more likely to be left behind.