Last week's editorial called for climate adaptation policy to receive funding that approaches the levels that mitigation policy has been receiving. The board has received an unusual volume of considered correspondence. Five representative letters appear below.

From a city engineer

The author, who works in a major coastal city, writes: “The editorial captured what city engineers have been saying internally for years. Adaptation infrastructure is the binding need; the funding conversation has been organised around mitigation. The gap is operational and is showing up in unprotected infrastructure.”

From a county emergency manager

Sarah Brennan, an emergency-management official in a Mid-Atlantic county, writes: “Adaptation funding at meaningful levels would change what my office can do. We are currently operating with capacity that worked for the last decade's hazard profile and will not work for the next decade's. The funding gap is real and is increasingly visible.”

From a climate researcher

Dr. Marcus Hale of a major research institution writes: “The editorial got the framing right. Mitigation policy will determine post-2050 outcomes; adaptation policy determines outcomes between now and then. The temporal asymmetry should be reflected in the funding allocation. It is not.”

From a coastal homeowner

Lisa Chen of South Florida writes: “The editorial captured what those of us in the affected geographies experience. The mitigation conversation is a longer-arc conversation; adaptation is what determines whether our houses survive the next decade. The federal investment has not matched the urgency.”

From a longtime reader

James Park of Vermont writes: “I have followed climate coverage in this paper for twenty years. The editorial board's recent focus on adaptation alongside mitigation reflects the kind of intellectual evolution the broader conversation needs. The work continues; the framing this editorial provided was useful.”