In the midst of the polycrisis, one of the most pressing societal challenges is the growing sense of powerlessness felt by large segments of the population. Global disruptions—ranging from economic instability and pandemics to the worsening impacts of climate change—have fueled a pervasive feeling that individuals no longer have control over their own lives. As uncertainty mounts, so does frustration and disillusionment with governments and political elites, leading to a diminished sense of political agency—the belief that people can meaningfully influence or enact change within the system.

Climate change intensifies this sense of helplessness. As extreme weather events become more frequent and severe, people not only experience its harsh effects firsthand but are also confronted with the sobering reality that even dramatic global efforts to reduce emissions won’t bring immediate relief. The growing geopolitical divides further erode hope in international climate cooperation, leaving many to feel that mitigation efforts, however necessary, offer no immediate improvement to their daily lives. True agency is not just the ability to act but the ability to take impactful action—and in the face of climate change, mitigation alone leaves individuals feeling powerless to change their imminent reality.¹

This lack of control has dangerous consequences. Anger, once constructive, can curdle into toxic resentment, as the underlying causes of suffering feel beyond resolution. This, in turn, leads to emotional disengagement, with denial becoming a refuge from overwhelming issues. These psychological shifts create fertile ground for populist and extremist groups to manipulate narratives, deepen polarisation, and weaken social cohesion, ultimately reducing public support for climate action.

However, adaptation offers a pathway to restore agency. By focusing on improving immediate living conditions and building resilience, collective adaptation efforts empower people not only to tackle the direct impacts of climate change but to reclaim personal and political power. Adaptation can strengthen communities’ ability to advocate for resources, hold institutions accountable, and negotiate for a fair share of support. When managed as a highly participatory process that addresses physical, economic, social, and psychological needs, adaptation can revitalise a sense of agency and reduce the backlash against climate action, counteracting the limitations of mitigation-focused strategies.

Organisations must prioritise climate crisis response and adaptation initiatives that actively build social capital to avoid further rollbacks in climate mitigation efforts. Disasters have a unique way of bringing people together in moments of urgency, inspiring spontaneous acts of collective action, particularly in the early “honeymoon phase”² of a crisis. As formal systems falter and institutional support proves insufficient in the initial rush of disaster relief, communities often rise to the occasion, instinctively organising themselves into mutual aid networks. Neighbours who may have barely interacted before suddenly find themselves working side by side, sharing resources, skills, and emotional support. This organic process—built on trust, cooperation, and shared purpose—sows the seeds of social capital. This vital resource strengthens the fabric of the community and helps it adapt to future challenges. 

But this newfound social capital, fragile and nascent, must be carefully nurtured and expanded if it is to serve as a lasting force for resilience in the face of future crises. The bonds formed during these intense periods of crisis are not only instrumental in immediate rescue and recovery efforts, but can also transform into powerful political capital. When communities learn to trust and collaborate with each other, they are better equipped to advocate for themselves, to demand external resources, and to influence political decisions. Particularly important is the formation of “bridging social capital”—connections between groups and networks that might not ordinarily cooperate. These bridges reduce fragmentation, helping the community resist the forces of polarisation that often pull it apart in the aftermath of a crisis.

However, when institutions and authorities step in with rigid, top-down interventions, focusing solely on managing rescue and recovery by rebuilding infrastructure, the delicate social fabric that communities have woven can unravel. Instead of empowering people, these interventions can strip communities of their agency, leading to disillusionment and a breakdown in the very social capital that had emerged. We saw this vividly during the COVID-19 pandemic, where top-down public health strategies contributed to the deepening divide between pro- and anti-vaccine groups, fragmenting communities and eroding trust in institutions.

The trajectory of social capital in the wake of a crisis—whether it flourishes or deteriorates—can profoundly shape the long-term political and social health of a community. As crises become more frequent and severe, social capital becomes increasingly volatile. In many parts of the world, this volatility has led to a sharp decline in communal bonds, exacerbating polarisation and fueling the rise of “culture wars.” Climate mitigation efforts have not been immune to this phenomenon, becoming entangled in the broader cultural conflicts that define modern political landscapes. At the same time, the unfolding polycrisis has heightened political instability and given rise to protest voting, making governments more vulnerable to backlash. Coupled with the financial diversion away from climate funding, these trends have contributed to public and political backpedalling on climate action and weakened democratic systems.

Yet, institutions and civil society have largely missed critical opportunities to harness the early stages of crises³ to build and solidify social capital while preventing its deterioration in later stages. If we fail to engage communities in this way, we risk stalling the progress needed for climate mitigation. By their very nature, Crises are moments of rapid change where political action either accelerates or grinds to a halt, and public narratives and social norms shift dramatically. Failing to recognise the role of social capital during these pivotal moments means forfeiting the chance to shape these shifts in a positive direction.

By fostering community bonds and resilience now, during the unfolding climate crisis, we can ensure the strength and unity needed to maintain momentum in the fight for meaningful climate action.

Empowering people through adaptation and giving them the tools to safeguard their lives and communities offers a powerful way to dissolve the growing emotional climate denial in many societies. Denial operates as a deeply ingrained defence mechanism, shielding us from the emotional weight of fear or guilt. When overwhelmed by these emotions, the mind instinctively seeks relief by rejecting the source of discomfort. It’s a mental escape hatch, offering temporary comfort by disbelieving the realities that trigger unease. Yet, emotional denial should not be confused with politically motivated climate denial. Often fueled by deliberate disinformation, the latter can be challenged with facts and reason. Emotional denial, however, is far more insidious. It erects a cognitive barrier, filtering all incoming information through a lens of confirmation bias, allowing only what aligns with pre-existing beliefs to seep through. When facts challenge these beliefs, the reaction is often defensive—those in denial metaphorically “shoot the messenger,” dismissing the source with hostility rather than confronting the truth.

Denial takes on many forms, ranging from outright rejection—“Climate change is a hoax!”—to more nuanced deflections: “It’s not as severe as people claim,” “A rapid transition away from fossil fuels will do more harm than good,” or “Technology will fix everything, we’ll adapt.” These statements act as psychological armour, deflecting the urgency of the crisis and allowing the individual to remain in a state of comfortable inaction. Much like a person in denial about their drinking habits, seeking out any rationale to justify continued behaviour, those in climate denial gravitate toward narratives that downplay the problem. This selective absorption of information makes them particularly susceptible to populist rhetoric, which often opposes meaningful climate action.

Denial is one of the greatest obstacles to rallying public support for climate initiatives. By dulling the sense of urgency, it erodes the motivation for change, making widespread support for climate action a distant goal. Without confronting and addressing this denial, the path to meaningful mitigation becomes increasingly difficult. Combatting denial, therefore, is not just important—it’s essential for building the momentum needed for climate action. Paradoxically, even direct encounters with climate impacts, such as wildfires, floods, or extreme heat, can deepen denial. Research shows that when individuals feel powerless in the face of these events, their instinct to deny the future risks of climate change strengthens. The inability to protect oneself from future impacts feeds this psychological retreat. 

Adaptation offers opportunities to empower people and allow them to protect their lives and their communities, helping break this cycle of denial. By increasing people’s sense of agency, individuals are more willing to face the reality of climate change. As extreme weather events become more frequent, denial will continue to rise unless people are equipped to improve their own circumstances and confront the coming challenges head-on.

As adaptation resolves the imminent needs of people, it is a more straightforward issue to engage people than mitigation. It can engage new audiences beyond the climate-converted (those who already know about and believe in the actual impacts). In many countries, extreme weather is not only a health but also an economic risk for people. In contrast to mitigation, it provides relevance even for those concerned about the end of the month. This is especially true during extreme weather events when people long for relief and are motivated to engage in ways to improve their experiences of present and future extreme weather events. 

But adaptation is not only an easier engagement point. As shown in the previous three points, engaging people in adaptation efforts can strengthen social capital and agency and thereby reduce climate denial. This creates the social foundation for collective mitigation action. Even more, people who seriously engage in adaptation work, will soon be confronted with the limits of adaptation. In contrast to people who passively hope that we will be able to adapt (denial optimism), those who engage with the design of adaptation measures and their funding will soon discover that further increasing temperatures or water levels pose insurmountable technical or economic limits, providing strong incentives to combine adaptation action with mitigation action. 

Organisations that have engaged constituencies through adaptation will be able to engage the same empowered communities to support their mitigation efforts, as the adaptation work has not only created vested interests but agency and social capital to build on.