Groundhog Day

Who could have predicted we’d endure an “unprecedented” summer in 2026, climate-wise? Unprecedented, like a scene of a good movie. For Benoît Leguet, avoiding endless reruns of the same story— and their costs — means finding ways to factor future climates into our economic decisions. A topic for budget debates in France at at the EU level.  

As the threat of another immediate heatwave in Europe recedes, we can hope to see the end of this movie. A movie with a rich script, but not a pleasant one: overheated schools, hospitals under strain, unlivable city centers, canceled trains, parched harvests, nuclear plants running at reduced capacity, critical water levels, and unprecedented wildfires. 

Coming up next: the cost of summer 2026 

All of this has direct and indirect impacts on every sector across European countries. No one can say they went untouched this summer, whether professionally or personally. The theoretical warning has been proven by experience: our economy isn’t adapted to today’s climate — let alone tomorrow’s, as long as we keep burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases. 

The bill will fill several more scenes of the movie. First, the tally of direct summer losses: hectares of burned forest, canceled vacations, the deficit deepened by emergency aid. Then the delayed effects: impacts on the health of exposed populations; on our food systems; on homes, as rehydrating clay soils cause cracks to appear; and even on autumn weather, with an increased flood risk from a warmer sea.

Let’s skip the reruns 

We already have everything needed on the technical, administrative, and scientific fronts to avoid being condemned to live the same scene again and again every summer. So let’s not waste a good crisis. This summer’s sequence should lead to a debrief: what held up, what had to be adjusted, what failed — to understand which actions and decisions were effective, and which shouldn’t be repeated. In a few years, summer 2026 may look like the norm, but improvised, last-minute fixes — as has too often been the case — won’t cut it anymore. After the 2003 heatwave in France, crisis management improved considerably. After 2026, we need to go further on anticipation — and even if we can’t adapt to everything, go further on structural transformation.

Does the word “transformation” sound scary, evoking the “investment wall” described by Monique Barbut, the French Minister of Environment? The size of that wall depends first on what we want to protect “at all costs” and what we are willing to give up. It also depends on which adaptation options we choose: some responses might require little investment — shifting working hours during heatwaves, say, rather than fully overhauling buildings. And finally, it depends on sequencing: the goal isn’t to adapt everything within five years, but to systematically factor future climate into every investment, so that our economies gradually become more resilient. 

Seen this way, adaptation isn’t an added expense — it’s the plot for well-designed economic policy on land use planning, housing, and economic development, one that spares us considerable risk and expense down the line. 

Bring on the next saga 

After the summer 2026 that left millions of people in Europe affected, failing to offer a credible response on climate adaptation could well cost elections. It’s up to political leaders to design and implement such a response — credible, including on financing.