Adapt or Mitigate?

Adapt or mitigate? The climate crisis is unfolding very slowly, not like wars or the rise of AI. Having missed the target of keeping the global temperature rise under 1.5 °C, more voices are talking about investing in climate adaptation technologies. After all, if we cannot stop climate change, then we should adapt to it, so it is prudent to spend more on adaptation, rather than mitigation technologies.

The argument misses the fact that mitigation and adaptation don’t actually compete for the same pool of capital. They need different kinds.

Mitigation — solar, wind, heat pumps, EVs — is now mature and de-risked. It fits the profile of banks, infra funds, and pension investors: long-term, asset-heavy, and predictable.

Adaptation, on the other hand, is still in its early innings. Climate-resilient crops, water reuse—all these require high-risk, patient capital—the kind that comes from angels, VCs, governments, and impact funds.

From where I stand, the real fight isn’t between mitigation and adaptation — it’s between money going to AI and wars on one side, and climate on the other. So the capital divide is not the problem. The attention divide is.

We’re betting big on AI models that write poetry and war machines that destroy cities — and hoping that someone else will build the seawalls and redesign the power grid.

So, when you look at the next climate mitigation or adaptation technology, be sure to check out my framework for understanding whether a climate tech is worth investing in, from the climate perspective.