At Cambridge Home School Online, we are always delighted to celebrate the remarkable accomplishments of our students, and we were recently thrilled to spotlight one of our brightest stars.
Meet Amaanah, our exceptional Head Girl, whose recent achievements embody the curiosity, dedication, and leadership we value so deeply at CHS.
Earlier this year, Amaanah entered the prestigious Crimson International Academic Essay Competition, dedicating three months to researching compelling case studies on climate change. Her essay, titled “Should governments be prioritising climate change adaptation policies rather than climate mitigation policies?”, impressed judges from around the world and earned an extraordinary 2nd place out of 2,000 entries.
This outstanding recognition has not only made our entire school community immensely proud, but it also led to an exciting new opportunity: after reading her essay, the CEO of a climate science research company personally invited her to complete work experience with their team—an experience Amaanah is eagerly looking forward to.
Beyond her academic excellence, Amaanah is also making a meaningful impact within CHS. She has recently launched the STEM Club for Girls, an inspiring initiative designed to encourage more girls to explore their interests in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Amanaah’s Incredible essay is below:
Should governments be prioritising climate change adaptation policies rather than climate mitigation policies? Amaanah, Year 12, United Kingdom
As we stand at a pivotal point in the global climate crisis, nations face a pressing question: “should governments be prioritising climate change adaptation policies over mitigation policies?” This dilemma has intensified in the wake of record-breaking heatwaves (e.g. the June 2025 European heatwaves), catastrophic floods (e.g. Storm Boris across Central Europe in September 2024), and slow progress on both emissions reductions and adaptation initiatives worldwide. My position stands from a point of both conviction and urgency: while mitigation – the long-term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions – must remain the overarching global goal we should strive to achieve, a failure to aggressively prioritise adaptation in the present, especially for the world’s most vulnerable, constitutes to a catastrophic dereliction of duty. This essay will critically assess the ethical, strategic, and economic dimensions of this debate, drawing from global examples and policy developments such as in Bangladesh, the Netherlands, and the UK.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body responsible for assessing climate science and informing policy decisions, defines adaptation as the process of adjusting to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. Mitigation, by contrast, refers to human intervention to reduce emissions or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases (IPCC, 2018). There is a clear distinction here: mitigation addresses the root cause of anthropogenic climate change, while adaptation manages the impacts already “locked in” due to historical emissions. Mitigation is global and a long-term process; whereas adaptation is local, immediate, and often reactive. This conceptual divide has strategic consequences, shaping how governments allocate their resources and define responsibility.
Moreover, the economic costs and benefits of adaptation is shifting: while mitigation policies such as carbon pricing and renewable energy investment are essential, they often require substantial upfront capital and deliver benefits over decades. Adaptation, by contrast, can yield immediate returns. For instance, in drought-prone regions of sub-Saharan Africa, improved irrigation systems have increased crop yields by up to 40% and reduced food insecurity (Hurst, 2025, p. 88). In high-income European cities, heat-resilient urban design – such as green roofs and reflective pavements – has reduced hospital admissions during heatwaves and lowered energy demand for cooling (Capgemini Invent, 2024). These examples highlight the development divide and the differing needs to adapt to climate change or mitigate it based on the context of a region: low-income countries face acute vulnerability and require urgent adaptation, while high-income nations benefit from both mitigation and adaptation investments. However, adaptation strategies are not without limitations. They can be expensive to maintain, may not scale equitably and therefore may not fairly benefit all communities, and risk becoming obsolete if warming continues unchecked. Governments must therefore weigh out the short-term benefits of these temporary solutions against long-term sustainability and consider the counterarguments around cost-effectiveness and equity.
Nonetheless, adaptation alone cannot secure a liveable future. Without robust mitigation, the scale of adaptation required will become increasingly unmanageable. For example, sea walls may protect against moderate sea-level rise, but as climate change continues to worsen at such a rapid pace, they are becoming futile in the face of runaway warming. The UNEP Adaptation Gap Report warns that without net-zero commitments, global temperatures could exceed 2.5°C by the end of the century, rendering many adaptation strategies ineffective (UNEP, 2024, p. 17). This therefore raises questions of feasibility: can low-income countries realistically adapt without global support? Here, globalisation and sustainability offer partial solutions. Solutions outlined in the UNDP’s Climate Adaptation Finance Strategy Guideline such as international climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building initiatives – can all help to bridge the adaptation gap (IISD, 2025). However, these mechanisms remain underfunded and politically contested, unfortunately limiting their reach and impact.
This tension is particularly acute in high-emitting nations. Countries such as the United States, China, and members of the European Union bear historical responsibility for the bulk of global emissions. Their role in the climate response must centre on mitigation, not only because they have the capacity to lead, but because their actions shape the global trajectory. The UK, for instance, has made significant strides in decarbonising its energy sector, yet its adaptation progress remains slow. The Climate Change Committee (CCC, 2025) highlights gaps in the UK’s flood resilience, heatwave preparedness, and infrastructure planning – particularly in urban drainage systems and care home cooling standards. These gaps are realistic to address, but require coordinated investment and policy changes. Without such action, even mitigation leaders in high income countries, such as the UK, risk leaving vulnerable populations exposed. (House of Commons Library, 2025).
The Netherlands, however, offer a compelling model of integration. Long vulnerable to flooding, the country has invested heavily in adaptive infrastructure through its Delta Programme, while simultaneously embracing mitigation through renewable energy expansion and sustainable urban planning (Netherlands Government, 2025). Integration, in this context, refers to the strategic alignment and balance of both adaptation and mitigation within broader sustainable development goals. Defined by Swart and Raes (2007), integration ensures coherence, avoids policy conflict, and maximises the co-benefits of both mitigation and adaptation. However, even in the Netherlands, challenges persist. Rising costs of flood defence maintenance, political debates over land use, and environmental trade-offs – such as biodiversity loss from hard infrastructure, show us the difficulties which can arise of even the most complex integrated approaches.
Furthermore, the ethical dimension of this debate cannot be overstated; climate change is not simply a technical challenge – it is also an issue of global justice. The “great climate migration” described by Lustgarten (2020) is already underway, with millions displaced by droughts, floods, and rising seas. These movements are not hypothetical – they are happening now, disproportionately affecting the poor, the marginalised, and the geographically exposed, such as the exemplar case study of Bangladesh previously mentioned. To prioritise mitigation without addressing adaptation immediately, is to abandon these communities to escalating harm from our actions which have contributed to climate change. Conversely, to focus solely on adaptation without reducing emissions is to condemn future generations to a world of compounding crises. Therefore, a truly effective climate strategy must be both ambitious and compassionate. It must pursue aggressive mitigation to limit future warming, while simultaneously investing in adaptation to protect those already affected or at risk of soon being hit by catastrophic events due to climate change. (IPCC, 2022).
Looking ahead, governments must invest in more innovative, future-facing solutions. This includes scaling nature-based adaptation, such as restoring wetlands and mangroves, which offer both flood protection and carbon sequestration (Defra, 2023). It also means deploying AI and satellite technologies to monitor climate risks in real time, enabling faster, more targeted responses to potential climatic events. (Capgemini Invent, 2024). Participatory planning and climate education are equally vital, to ensure that adaptation is not imposed but co-created (Lemaire and Muñiz, 2011). Governments must consider when developing their policies that their approach must be feasibly suitable specifically for the context of the region, i.e. they must consider what is technically possible must also be socially acceptable and economically viable for them.
In conclusion, the question of whether governments should prioritise adaptation over mitigation is not a matter of choosing solely one over the other. Mitigation remains the cornerstone of long-term climate stability, but adaptation is the scaffolding that holds vulnerable communities together in the present. Both are becoming more important as the Earth continues to hit major warming limits, and as climate impacts intensify whilst global emissions remain stubbornly high. By directly comparing both mitigation and adaptation strategies as outlined in this essay, it reveals that mitigation offers systemic change to actually reducing the underlying cause of climate change long-term, whilst adaptation delivers immediate relief temporarily. Governments therefore must act with urgency, intelligence, and empathy, and prioritise making policies that balance both adaptation and mitigation, focussing on which is most needed in the context of each specific region. World leaders in HICs, who are generally most responsible for the climate crisis, such as the US and many countries in Europe often must prioritise mitigation, whilst other vulnerable countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa already facing disastrous situations may choose to develop policies prioritising adaptation. Policies made should not only reduce emissions but also build resilience, protect communities and people’s lives around the world, and honour the moral imperative of climate justice.
Bibliography
• Capgemini Invent (2024) Climate adaptation: Harnessing tech-driven resilience to create sustainable value. Available at: https://www.capgemini.com/gb- en/insights/research-library/climate-adaptation-harnessing-tech-driven-resilience-to- create-sustainable-value/ (Accessed: 29 September 2025).
• Climate Change Committee (CCC) (2025) Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report to Parliament. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in- adapting-to-climate-change-2025/ (Accessed: 29 September 2025).
• Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) (2023) Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/third-national-adaptation-programme- nap3 (Accessed: 29 September 2025).
• Government of Bangladesh and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2023) Bangladesh-UK Accord on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bangladesh-uk-accord-on-climate-change (Accessed: 29 September 2025).
• House of Commons Library (2025) Climate change adaptation and resilience in the UK. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9969/ (Accessed: 29 September 2025).
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018) Glossary: Global warming of 1.5ºC, Special Report. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/ (Accessed: 29 September 2025).
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2022) FAQ 4: How are people adapting to the effects of climate change and what are the known limits to adaptation? Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/frequently-asked- questions/keyfaq4/ (Accessed: 29 September 2025).
• International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2025) Scaling Community- Based Adaptation in Southern Africa. Available at: https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep- dive/scaling-community-based-adaptation-southern-africa (Accessed: 29 September 2025).
• Lemaire, I. and Muñiz, S. (2011) Participatory Video for Monitoring and Evaluation of Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change. Centre for Development Informatics, University of Manchester.
• Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Bangladesh) (2022) National Adaptation Plan of Bangladesh (2023–2050). United Nations Development Programme, Dhaka, pp. 42–58. Available at: https://www.undp.org/bangladesh/publications/national-adaptation-plan-bangladesh (Accessed: 29 September 2025).