Why take a planned approach?

Some adaptation is possible without long lead times, but you should be aware that:

There are difficulties in recognising the climate change signal

Climate is defined as the average weather experienced over a long period (usually 30 years), whereas weather (what we actually experience) is by its nature very variable. It is tempting to wait for changes to take effect and respond to them as they happen, however, a passive approach is likely to put each successive extreme weather event down to natural variability, without the organisational memory to pick up on the long term trend. The fact that it may be more cost-effective to make changes now is unlikely to be detected solely on the basis of past experience.

There are lag times and arrangements that need to be made between detecting the change, deciding what to do and then implementing that decision.

Efficient adaptation requires the right institutional and organisational conditions, known as adaptive capacity, to be in place. For example, information may be needed to figure out the best way to adapt, policies, plans or procedures may need to be re-written and roles and responsibilities to be assigned. All of this requires a certain amount of forward planning.

Retrofitting can be significantly more costly than allowing for change in line with natural replacement cycles.

Maintenance programmes, new buildings or the replacement of old equipment with new present opportunities to take account of the future climate even if no impacts are currently being felt. The associated costs are likely to be less in the long term than waiting for the weather to become a problem, when changes could be awkward, disruptive and less effective.