Climate has changed, are we changing with it?
The critical issue is no longer merely a matter of climate change, but has become a systemic one: to what extent can our infrastructure, regions and economic models adapt to a new risk regime?
8 May 2026, by Ana Lagoa, COO of CSF
The recent episodes of intense storms in Portugal are not isolated events, nor mere meteorological anomalies. They are local manifestations of structural changes in the global climate system, the scientific evidence for which is now robust and widely agreed upon.
One of the most significant changes concerns the position of the Azores High, a high-pressure system that has historically acted as a natural “shield” for the Iberian Peninsula, influencing atmospheric stability and diverting Atlantic depressions and frontal systems. However, this anticyclone has been observed to shift further south with increasing frequency and intensity.
This change is not neutral. When the Azores High is positioned further south, this blocking effect is weakened, allowing storms from the Atlantic to reach Portuguese territory more directly, with greater intensity and frequency.
This phenomenon is directly linked to changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation, including variations in the Jet Stream and in the thermal gradient between the Arctic and mid-latitudes. The more accelerated warming of the Arctic, known as Arctic amplification, is reducing this gradient, contributing to a more wavy and less predictable jet stream behavior, which in turn favors the occurrence of persistent extreme events.
In addition, the increase in global average temperature implies a greater capacity of the atmosphere to retain water vapor, which intensifies episodes of extreme precipitation.
The result is a climate system characterized by greater variability, higher frequency of extreme events, and increased uncertainty. In Portugal, this translates into a more pronounced alternation between prolonged drought periods and intense precipitation events, often concentrated in short time intervals, significantly increasing the risk of flash floods and landslides.
Against this backdrop, the critical question ceases to be purely climatic and becomes systemic: what is the capacity of our infrastructures, territories, and economic models to adapt to this new risk regime?
The answer, at present, reveals structural weaknesses at multiple levels.
Land use in risk-prone areas, the high degree of soil sealing in urban environments, the degradation of natural drainage systems, and the limited capacity of critical infrastructure such as stormwater networks all amplify the impacts of these events. In many cases, economic and social damage results as much from exposure and vulnerability as from the intensity of the climatic event itself.
It is in this context that climate adaptation ceases to be an option and becomes a strategic necessity. Unlike mitigation, which addresses the causes of climate change, adaptation focuses on managing its impacts, requiring an integrated approach across science, spatial planning, engineering, and public policy.
However, adaptation faces a central challenge: financing.
Historically, climate finance has been predominantly directed towards mitigation, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and industrial decarbonization. While these investments remain essential, there is now a growing recognition of the need to channel capital towards adaptation projects.
In this domain, green finance instruments such as green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and dedicated European funds (e.g., the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the Cohesion Fund) play a critical role. However, the mobilization of these resources continues to face obstacles, namely the difficulty in quantifying the direct financial returns of adaptation projects, challenges in measuring avoided risk, and the absence of standardized metrics for impact assessment.
Paradoxically, it is precisely in adaptation that the cost of inaction is most evident. Each extreme event translates into direct economic losses, including infrastructure damage, business disruption, and response costs, as well as indirect losses such as reduced productivity, asset devaluation, and increased risk premiums.
In this sense, integrating climate risk into financial decision-making ceases to be a matter of sustainability and becomes a matter of prudent risk management.
The transition we are facing is not only an energy transition. It is also a transition towards an economic model capable of operating in a context of greater climate instability.
And this requires a profound reconfiguration of the way we plan, invest, and make decisions.
It is precisely at this intersection between climate science, risk, and finance that initiatives such as Lisbon Sustainability Week 2026 gain relevance. In a context where climate adaptation requires coordinated responses between the public sector, the financial system, regulators, companies, and academia, it becomes essential to create spaces for structured, action-oriented dialogue.
More than discussing scenarios, the goal is to accelerate solutions.
Because the scientific evidence is clear: the climate has already changed.
The only open question is whether we can adjust our systems, economic, financial, and territorial, at the same speed.
O Clima muda, e nós mudamos com ele?
Link to the original text (in Portuguese) https://observador.pt/opiniao/o-clima-muda-e-nos-mudamos-com-ele/
