(Bloomberg) -- Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a cut-and-dry way to stop climate change. But how the world responds to the impacts already taking place is a whole other can of worms — a large can, and one that can seem incomprehensible.

Dubbed climate adaptation, the field doesn’t rely on a handful of solutions such as installing wind turbines and manufacturing batteries. Building a seawall, wearing clothes that keep you cool, and even relocating an entire community are all forms of climate adaptation. Adaptation looks different for every community, based on the climate threats they face now and in the future. 

It’s also taking on increasing importance as the world deals with the worsening impacts of climate change. Last year, the US alone saw a record 28 climate disasters that cost $1 billion or more. Governments and institutions are starting to act in anticipation of worse shocks to come.

The UN Global Climate Fund has nearly $14 billion in its portfolio, and more than 250 approved adaptation and mitigation projects. About half of the projects funded by the GCF are adaptation-specific, and located in 129 low-income countries. At COP28 in Dubai last December, countries agreed on a framework to identify their individual adaptation needs and assess their efforts to meet them. Still, adapting to climate change falls far behind mitigation when it comes to financing. Of the $1.8 trillion in climate spending last year, only a sliver went to adaptation.

Because of its nebulous nature, there’s also an air of mystery surrounding climate adaptation and how we live in a warming world. We’re answering the biggest questions around it, including how to ensure it goes hand-in-hand with reducing climate impacts. 

How is adaptation different from mitigation? 

Mitigation is all about how we slow down climate change or stop it altogether. For decades, the world has focused on doing just that (though emissions have risen to all-time highs).

Adaptation is about figuring out how to minimize current impacts, as well as those in the pipeline. Climate change is already affecting our lives as the world faces more extreme weather and changing background conditions. Even if we eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, planet-warming pollution already in the atmosphere will continue to heat things up for decades to come.

Mitigation is like quitting smoking to reduce the risk of severe lung disease, while adaptation is like learning to live with any negative impacts that have already accrued. The bottom line is you need to do both.

Why does solving climate change get more attention than adapting to it?  

Mitigation receives more attention because it is easier to define numerically. For example, the US wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030. The tools to do so are relatively obvious, including installing clean energy, switching to electric vehicles and cleaning up heavy industry. 

Additionally, the same solutions work everywhere; a wind turbine in China and one in Kenya will both produce clean energy. That allows for economies of scale that can help bring down costs and spur greater investment and deployment. The same doesn’t hold for adapting to climate change. 

“Adaptation is foundationally local, mitigation is foundationally global,” says Lisa Allen Dale, a climate adaptation researcher and professor at Columbia University. Everything from the natural world to the built environment to the political one can affect adaptation strategies. A coastal town will have needs that are wildly different from one susceptible to wildfires. 

Companies engaging in adaptation efforts also rarely see a direct return on investment beyond initiatives geared at protecting their own assets or supply chain. Buying cheaper clean energy can cut operating costs and emissions, while pouring millions of dollars into building a river dike, for example, is unlikely to see a similar financial reward. With no plain-sight payoff for many adaptation projects, “it makes them less appealing” to the private sector, says Emilie Beauchamp, a climate resilience expert at the Winnipeg, Canada-based International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Does adaptation mean giving up on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? 

No! It’s a common misconception to think adaptation means we have failed at reducing fossil fuel emissions. But mitigation and adaptation go together, Dale says. The world has already been adapting to climate change — albeit slowly — for decades. With at least some warming baked in already, it makes sense to plan for the impacts. Mitigating climate risks now, meanwhile, means we’ll have to rely on fewer extreme adaptation measures in the future. 

Read More: Why ‘Loss and Damage’ Is a Climate Talks Battleground

How big is the adaptation funding gap?  

A report from the Climate Policy Initiative, a global research nonprofit, found the world put $1 trillion into mitigating climate change in 2021 and 2022, but spent only $63 billion on adaptation. (Disclaimer: Bloomberg Philanthropies is a CPI donor.)

Adaptation isn’t just a sliver of climate funding. It also receives a sliver of the funding it needs. Investments were up to 18 times below levels required to truly insulate society from climate change’s worsening impacts, according to a UN report released last year. To keep up, the world will need to close a gap of between $194 billion and $366 billion.

Why is there a gap in the first place?

The gap is largely explained by the abstract nature of adaptation, according to Dale. 

Mitigation makes people money. Adaptation rarely does. Investors backing a wind farm or EV charging stations will see direct returns on investment. (Or at least that’s the idea.) Adaptation rarely offers that outside of a few rare cases such as climate-proofing the supply chain by ensuring a hurricane won’t wipe out a factory, says CPI researcher Sean Stout. That’s not to say adaptation doesn’t have benefits, of course. 

“This is asking investors to invest in social wellbeing, invest in reducing social vulnerability and to invest in improving government’s readiness and ability to respond to climate risks,” Dale says. But “those are tough investment recruitment strategies.” 

Read More: Extreme Weather Makes Climate ‘Adaptation Gap’ More Urgent: UN 

Where is climate adaptation needed? Who is getting the most funding? 

Africa is the region most affected by climate change, yet it only receives 20% of global adaptation funding. In comparison, East Asia and the Pacific get almost 45% of adaptation financing. Some of the most fragile African countries struggle to access or rely fully on humanitarian aid, according to Stout, making it difficult for the countries to sufficiently prepare for climate change. 

Read More: How the World’s Richest People Are Driving Climate Change

Is it still worth investing in? 

Yes! Just because adaptation isn’t a major moneymaker doesn’t mean it should be ignored. Adaptation can help insulate the countries and communities most vulnerable to climate change. That can protect populations and ecosystems and promote economic growth. 

“I would say adaptation is our main hope,” says Beauchamp of IISD. “Ignoring adaptation means that there is no hope for people that are living with climate risks and that are at the frontline of climate risks.”

--With assistance from Coco Liu.

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.