There is a paradox in how climate adaptation strategies are designed. On one hand, we acknowledge that climate is a dynamic, complex, and emergent system. On the other, we anchor strategies to models that, by necessity, simplify complexity into linear or probabilistic scenarios. While useful for broad directional guidance, this approach leads to two key issues:

Fixation on Predictive Certainty

Climate models offer valuable scenarios, but they are still bounded by known variables and assumptions. When these scenarios are treated as definitive futures rather than possibilities, adaptation strategies risk becoming rigid and obsolete as new emergent conditions unfold. This fosters a tendency toward reactive planning, where strategies prepare for specific anticipated futures rather than a range of possible, unknowable futures.

Overlooking Systemic Interactions and Tipping Points

Many adaptation strategies assume a relatively stable rate of change, such as incremental sea-level rise or gradual temperature increases. However, emergence means that tipping points can suddenly accelerate change in unpredictable ways. Most adaptation planning operates within governance and funding structures that demand quantifiable targets and timelines. This creates a blind spot: we prepare for a world that aligns with modelled projections, rather than one shaped by unforeseen emergent disruptions.

An Alternative Framing: Adaptive Capacity Over Predictive Certainty

If we accept that emergence is fundamental to climate systems, then adaptation must prioritise adaptive capacity rather than fixed projections. Instead of designing for a predetermined future, we should design for the ability to respond to multiple possible futures. This requires:

• Resilience as a Process, Not a Target: Resilience should not be about achieving a fixed adaptation goal (e.g., building seawalls for X meters of sea-level rise by 2050). Instead, it should be about maintaining the ability to adjust and pivot continuously.
• Diverse and Flexible Approaches: Rather than concentrating resources on a single model-driven prediction, strategies should focus on modular, scalable, and reversible interventions that allow for adaptation as new information emerges.
• Anticipatory, Not Just Reactive Thinking: Emergent properties often mean that by the time a problem is visible, it is already too late. Adaptation planning should incorporate horizon-scanning techniques that identify weak signals of systemic shifts early.
• Cross-Sector Collaboration: Because emergent changes will affect ecological, social, and economic systems simultaneously, adaptation must be systemic, not siloed. Policy, finance, infrastructure, and cultural adaptation must be interconnected, not treated as separate domains.

Reframing Our Relationship with Uncertainty

This approach requires a shift in mindset: from treating uncertainty as a failure of knowledge (to be solved with better models), to treating it as an inherent feature of complex systems. In this framing, uncertainty is not an obstacle; it is the very condition around which we must build adaptive capacity.

Instead of adaptation strategies that try to lock in responses to predicted conditions, we need approaches that assume conditions will shift unpredictably. Our best strategy is to remain fluid, responsive, and capable of reconfiguring as we go.

From Climate Change Adaptation to Process Synchronisation

The dominant climate discourse often treats climate change as a disruption to an assumed state of stability. This is a flawed perception because:

• Climate has never been static; it has always been a process. What we call climate change is an anthropocentric way of describing variations in climate that affect human societies in ways we find undesirable.
• Human activity has also never been static. Civilisations have continuously adapted to changing environments, with varying degrees of success.
• The problem is not change itself but the lack of synchronisation: human economic, social, and industrial activities operate on a trajectory that is out of sync with Earth’s climatic processes.

Moving Beyond the Emergency Mindset

Instead of treating climate adaptation as a set of steps toward a new stable state (which does not exist), we should ask: How do we bring human processes into a more dynamic, responsive relationship with climatic processes? The language of climate emergency creates urgency but also reinforces a false belief that we have a clear target to “fix” things.

• Urgency is necessary for mobilising action but must be paired with strategic thinking that recognises adaptation as an ongoing process, not a one-time transition.
• Instead of emergency thinking, we need long-term process thinking that integrates adaptation into social, economic, technological and cultural evolution.

Recognising That Human Processes Must Be Adaptive, Not Just Infrastructure

Most climate adaptation strategies emphasise infrastructure-based solutions (e.g., seawalls, flood defences). However, infrastructure alone cannot synchronise human and climatic processes. We need cultural adaptation, economic restructuring, and social transformations that allow human activity to flow with, rather than resist, climatic changes. Adaptation should shift from being solely about protection to being about alignment and attunement.

Emphasising Flexibility Over Fixity

Current adaptation strategies often assume we are transitioning from one stable state to another (e.g., from a stable climate to a warmer one). But there is no fixed endpoint—climate is a process. Adaptation must be about ongoing reconfiguration, not a one-time transition. Policies, economies, and social systems should be designed to be modular, flexible, and capable of shifting alongside climatic processes.

Synchronising Human and Climatic Processes Requires a Shift in Governance and Policy

Most policy frameworks are linear and bureaucratic, designed for stability rather than dynamic responsiveness. Governance systems must be redesigned to align with process-based thinking, which means:

•             Policies that allow for real-time feedback and adjustments

•             Economic models that support regenerative rather than extractive practices

•             Social structures that embrace mobility, flexibility, and ecological responsibility

The term “climate change adaptation” suggests a one-time transition. In reality, what we need is process synchronisation—a continuous, ongoing effort to bring human activities into alignment with the ever-changing dynamics of the climate system.

Instead of reacting to change, we need to become fluent in change. Instead of treating climate as a force to resist, we need to treat it as a process to co-evolve with. Instead of assuming we can predict and control future states, we need to build the capability to remain flexible, responsive, and attuned to emergent shifts.

This shift—from reaction to synchronisation—could be the foundation of a truly resilient approach to climate adaptation.