The UK is forgetting the dull bit of climate change policy

This piece was originally published in the Financial Times on 15 July 2026.

Climate change policy divides into two parts. One is mitigation — reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It has huge numbers of advocates (some sceptics too). It attracts political attention and the ambitious. It is the subject of soaring rhetoric and street protests. It has big budgets and its own government department. It is encapsulated in a simple goal — net zero.

Its poor relation is adaptation — the need to adjust the way we live to the reality of a changing climate. No one is out on the street stopping traffic for it — indeed, some climate activists are hostile because they fear it will cloud the goal of reducing emissions. It has no dedicated budget. It is not amenable to a simple target or slogan. When the Department of Energy and Climate Change was created in 2008, adaptation was left with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The people working on it could be counted on the fingers of half a hand. The Climate Change Committee’s role on adaptation only came from an amendment to the climate change bill.

And while the UK has reduced emissions, the CCC has consistently called out the lack of progress on adaptation. The foreword to its latest report in May said: “The public is concerned that we are unprepared . . . What governments have been doing on adaptation clearly isn’t working. It is time for change.”

The CCC lays out a whole range of areas the government needs to deal with to become what it terms “well-adapted”. But nothing so far suggests Andy Burnham is any more interested than Sir Keir Starmer. There is no indication that Burnham will appoint a cabinet big hitter to Defra. It may be as low a priority for him as for the other seven prime ministers since the Climate Change Act passed in 2008.

But this summer is a reminder of the cost of failing to adapt. Whether it is arguments over air conditioning or schoolchildren staying home when schools overheat (with economic consequences for working parents), the consequences of cancelling operations due to overheating NHS operating theatres, or how to keep the trains running and the roads open, the clear and immediate costs of not being well adapted are beginning to mount.

But there are longer-term consequences too — how much to spend on flood defence and where; how to ensure those at risk can get insurance; how farming and land use need to change in reaction to hotter summers and wetter winters; how to protect against new diseases taking hold in the UK.

It is unreasonable to expect Defra alone to push this up the agenda of government. The Cabinet Office could house an adaptation unit. But prime ministers have a lot to focus on and there is nothing less powerful than an orphaned central coordinating unit.

There is, however, one institution in government that can force departments to pay attention: the Treasury. At root, adaptation is not an environmental issue. It is an economic performance and value-for-money issue.

Here’s how Burnham could stop adaptation being the climate Cinderella. First, treat adaptation as a value-for-money issue — that would focus minds at the top of the civil service and enable scrutiny and challenge of how far departmental plans take account of future climate threats and are resilient to potential changes.

Second, the Treasury should lead on adaptation planning as an economic and social risk, deciding where it is worth spending money and where other options are better to reduce disruption and minimise costs. It can make sure capital spending is resilient to future climate scenarios. It can ensure a common approach across government.

Adaptation suffers from being the dull but essential part of dealing with climate change, a distraction from more glamorous policy. That makes it a natural fit for the Treasury.