"We no longer have any choice but to adapt to climate change"

"It is unlikely that we will take measures to prevent climate change, and it is actually rather the opposite. It is therefore prudent to prepare for it." This quote from climatologist William Kellogg dates back to the 1970s–1980s, a period when several reports were then warning about the coming climate change.

At the time, some researchers envisaged another path than reducing the impact of human activities, seen as a possible brake on economic growth. They anticipated that some regions of the planet could become uninhabitable and considered ways to adapt.

Fifty years later, after a summer marked by heatwaves and historic droughts, the word "adaptation" is making a major comeback in discourse. For this third installment of our series of interviews on sustainable finance (ahead of the next Geneva Building Bridges summit), we discuss this comeback with Vincent Kaufmann, director of the Ethos Foundation. Interview

How do you explain the resurgence of the word "adaptation"?

This word returns because reality is imposing itself on us. Its comeback shows that we collectively waited too long to limit our impact on the climate and that we now have no choice but to adapt to climate change and its effects. The summer of 2026, marked by extreme events, painfully reminded us of that.

There is something dramatic about the return of this word. The latest United Nations scenarios confirm it: the 1.5 °C threshold will be exceeded, at least temporarily. In the best case, warming will have to be contained around 1.8 °C, provided that the announced commitments on carbon neutrality are kept. We must now try to limit the worst-case scenario by continuing to mitigate our emissions while adapting to what can no longer be avoided.

About fifty years ago, some experts considered adaptation less costly than mitigation of climate change. Do you share that analysis?

No. For Ethos, the priority has always been, and remains, to limit our impact on the climate. Mitigation is not an alternative; it must precede adaptation. In the short term, adaptation may seem attractive because it gives the impression that we can postpone transforming our economies. But in the medium and long term, the cost of inaction on mitigation will be massive.

Institutions such as the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) or the Swiss Re Institute estimate that global GDP loss could reach 10 to 15% by 2050, even 18% in the absence of mitigation measures. Conversely, it would be limited to 4% if the objectives of the Paris Agreement were met.

Behind these percentages lie very concrete risks: heatwaves reduce labor productivity; droughts weigh on agricultural yields; floods and storms damage infrastructure and production sites. Added to this are water stress, sea level rise, loss of productive land and the increasing difficulty of insuring certain regions or assets. For an investor who thinks long term, the impact of climate change on the global economy will be considerable if we continue to ignore the science and delay transforming our energy sources.

Sobriety should be our primary course of action. Unfortunately, it runs counter to the business model of many companies.

So adaptation rather than mitigation would be a form of giving up on the Paris goals?

Exactly! That choice would represent a renunciation of the climate objectives we have set ourselves, whereas the 1.5 °C limit will not be met. This observation does not detract from the validity or urgency of the Paris Agreement goals, which remain the compass of climate action, including for investors. Acknowledging this does not mean giving up. We can still act to try to mitigate our impact: every fraction of a degree of warming avoided translates into fewer damages, costs and risks, both for populations and for investors' portfolios.

Shouldn't we also update words like "sufficiency" or "robustness"?

Sufficiency should be our primary course of action. Unfortunately, it goes against the business model of many companies, and even entire economic sectors. Our economies are based on a logic of infinite growth fueled by overconsumption of our planet's resources.

The term that is prevailing today is rather "resilience." For Ethos, the idea is not new since it ultimately serves to remind that climate change is above all a risk. This is particularly true for investors, especially those who invest long term, such as pension funds. Integrating these risks, managing them properly and limiting the climate impact of investments is an integral part of their fiduciary duty.

Another word that deserves to be updated is "solidarity." Greenhouse gas emissions remain very strongly linked to income level. Yet the populations and states most exposed to the effects of climate change are often those that have contributed the least and that have the fewest means to adapt. This asymmetry raises a question of social justice. It also represents a risk for investors, because it fuels social, political and migratory tensions.

It is undeniable that sustainability faces headwinds, notably in the United States.

How do you convince public authorities and the financial sector when Donald Trump calls climate change "the greatest hoax of all time"?

It is undeniable that sustainability faces headwinds, notably in the United States, where the anti-ESG movement has strengthened since Donald Trump's election. He embodies a nostalgic vision of growth at all costs and of the consumer society of the Thirty Glorious Years. His populist promise to restore America's former greatness convinced an electorate that hoped to gain access to those riches.

The result is quite different. Inequalities have widened in the United States and wealth is more concentrated than ever in the hands of a small circle close to the president. Climate change and planetary limits are the main brakes on the Trump model. That is precisely why he denies it so vehemently. It is a disturbing truth.

There remains the question of his responsibility before history. Denying climate change at the head of the world's leading economic power amounts to prioritizing the immediate interests of a few sectors over those of future generations. I hope that this victory of short-termism and every-man-for-himself will be temporary. Climate challenges are global and require collective action and a long-term vision.

Institutional investors, particularly pension funds that manage the savings of multiple generations, have precisely the mission to think at that scale. That is where their responsibility lies. I remain convinced that this setback will eventually belong to the past and that scientific facts and the climate emergency will reassert themselves.

At Building Bridges, which word should be reminded to the world of finance?

"Action." Climate change represents a financial risk, not just an environmental one. Investors have several levers to address it: exercising their shareholder rights, engaging in dialogue with companies and, if necessary, excluding certain investments. I hope this edition will be an opportunity to talk about concrete actions, measurable results and convictions, rather than limiting ourselves to intentions and declarations.

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.