This book analyzes climate change from a societal risk perspective, considering IPCC data, harm reduction, and global impact. Climate change is a globalised agent of social disruption whose impacts will worsen societal inequities and inequalities around the world. For some unfortunate societies already precariously exposed, climate change will tip them into societal collapse. Devastation will also occur to many ecological values in which all societies are embedded. But effective social action can limit the extent of these costs and losses. Ultimately, only social transformation can limit the social and environmental harms of climate change. But what does this mean? To what extent is society at risk? Are such risks particularized and restricted to specific segments and localities? Or is society at risk in a more universal way? Climate risks are re-shaping the practices of households, communities, governments and businesses. In this way, climate risks are a dynamic element in social change and social processes. Risk holds a mirror to society, revealing who and what is prioritized, recognized and valued. It also provides a reckoning of our perceived strengths, vulnerabilities and weaknesses. This volume examines how we understand the societal risks of contemporary and forecast climate change impacts—and those risks inherent in dealing with these impacts. We know that society is fashioning a new global climate—but climate change is also re-fashioning society; this book explores this dynamic process and considers its implications for future society.

Cities are increasingly impacted by climate change, driving the need for adaptation and sustainable development. Local and global economic and socio-cultural influence are also driving city redevelopment. This, fundamentally political, development highlights issues of who pays and who gains, who decides and how, and who/what is to be valued. Climate change adaptation has primarily been informed by science, but the adaptation discourse has widened to include the social sciences, subjecting adaptation practices to political analysis and critique. In this article, we critically discuss the just city concept in a climate adaptation context. We develop the just city concept by describing and discussing key theoretical themes in a politically and justice-oriented analysis of climate change adaptation in cities. We illustrate our arguments by looking at recent case studies of climate change adaptation in three very different city contexts: Port Vila, Baltimore City, and Karlstad. We conclude that the social context with its power asymmetries must be given a central position in understanding the distribution of climate risks and vulnerabilities when studying climate change adaptation in cities from a climate justice perspective.

An emerging component of the adaptation discourse, embracing theory, practice and review, is that of the negative assessment of adaptation, namely, maladaptation. Political theories and concepts have been applied as one of these assessment tools, giving rise to a political critique of maladaptation. Such a critique contrasts with the more conventional scientific and technical assessments of adaptation policies, programs and practices. Key political themes in studies of maladaptation include resource management and allocations, decision making processes, equity and fairness, gender, power and influence, and Nature and ecology. Within the scholarship on the politics of maladaptation, overlapping frameworks can be identified. Critiques of adaptation have been applied to the preconditions of adaptation, adaptation decision making processes and institutions, and to adaptation outcomes. There are a number of conceptual challenges in undertaking political analyses of adaptation. In this article, we outline the origins of the adaptation and maladaptation concepts, we describe the key political issues, we identify the application of politics in the maladaptation discourse and identify the major political perspectives. Finally, we draw conclusions on the state of the maladaptation discourse.

This book examines the political themes and policy perspectives related to, and influencing, climate change adaptation. It provides an informed primer on the politics of adaptation, a topic largely overlooked in the current scholarship and literature, and addresses questions such as why these politics are so important, what they mean, and what their implications are. The book also reviews various political texts on adaptation. 

Research and policy into climate change adaptation responses has expanded from the technological, financial and institutional realms into the social realms. There is a growing interest in, and awareness of, political aspects of adaptation policy and planning. This paper considers three aspects of this development and the broad issue of how contemporary political values influences adaptation responses. Firstly, a case is presented for identifying the political values in climate change adaptation policies, plans and programmes. Secondly, a range of political values and ideologies associated with public sector and NGO climate change adaptation measures are identified from contemporary scholarship. Thirdly, a number of implications of adaptation policy stemming from these political values are identified.

This paper examines Australia's national policies for adapting to climate change impacts. Recent developments in research funding, institutional capacities and extreme events have resulted in a greater interest and level of activity in adaptation policy. Based on a historical review of national policy, adaptation policy is considered within a political frame and political values, especially the values of neoliberalism, within adaptation policy are identified. Of interest are the implications of these values for the outcomes of adaptation policy, with attention given to the problem of maladaptation.

The focus in this paper is on policy and implementation of adaptation policies. The interest in adaptation policy in this text concerns the public policy dimension and not spontaneous social adaptations to changing climate or that undertaken independently by corporations or communities. The focus is on public policy and implementation that are planned, purposeful and intentional. The main issue in this text is how Swedish governance of climate change adaptation is organised and if this type of organising (or lack or organising) can lead to difficulties in reaching long term sustainable adaptation measures or even maladaptation at the local level?

Climate change is a complicated social problem. Formulating and implementing adaptation measures at the local level entails handling value conflicts, power relations, governance, equity, resource allocation, competing interests and, connected to all these issues and more, uncertainty. All this takes place in a complex context where a multitude of factors, and actors representing different societal interests, are interacting both facilitating and hindering effective action and involves changes in modes of operation in society as a whole.

Adaptation range from the local to the large, its time horizon can range from the short to the long terms, it can be tactical or strategic, it can seek immediate, delayed, or cumulative effects, and it can encompass widely differing outcomes.

Accordingly, formulating adaptation responses is a challenging issue for municipalities for a number of reasons. Firstly, the large range of possible climate change impacts. Secondly, the insufficient knowledge base. Thirdly, the lack of consensus on responsibilities. Fourthly, the usual set of problems facing public policy of this sort. In this paper we will focus adaptation measures implemented by Swedish municipalities. The empirical material consists of studies from state authorities of municipal adaptation to climate change.

National policy approaches to adaptation to climate change in Australia are used to address a research inquiry into the political values of adaptation policies. This study examines whether this public policy response constitutes ecological modernisation and considers the implications. Ecological modernisation’s associations with neo-liberalism are reviewed and an account of key public policies is given. Particular attention is paid to maladaptation risks and the question of the possible influence of ecological modernisation in contributing to these risks. Key findings include that the Australian adaptation policy approach features ecological modernisation, that comprehensive-rational planning is used, and that ecological justice values are at risk