Mitigation vs. adaptation

Waste heat: heat with it, don't generate power

Unused waste heat is mostly low-temperature (often 30–40 °C, raised to ~70–80 °C by a heat pump). Generating electricity needs a large temperature gradient, at low temperatures that makes little thermodynamic sense (exergy). Its place is heating: district heat, neighbouring plants, buildings. The BfEE Waste Heat Platform lists around 205 TWh of commercial waste heat nationwide.

Proximity caveat: A potential is not yet a supply. Waste heat is only usable if consumers are nearby or a heat network exists. A nationwide total says nothing about what is usable locally. A facility-level map would be possible but awaits a clarified reuse licence for the source data.

Green is not a carbon sink

Green roofs, de-sealing and sponge-city measures are valuable, their benefit is cooling, stormwater retention, biodiversity and quality of life. It is not meaningful emission reduction. Presenting greening as climate protection confuses adaptation with mitigation, exactly the line this page is about.

Bridge to the projections

The very consequences the projections show (more hot days, more frequent heavy rain, longer droughts) are what adaptation addresses. The separation still holds: adaptation does not reduce warming, it softens its consequences. Conversely, mitigation does not cool the world immediately. It limits how heavily the dice keep getting loaded.

Two caveats

Rebound: efficiency gains are often partly eaten up by higher consumption, the saving is rarely the full technical one. Embodied energy: renovation and reuse often beat a new build despite worse operating efficiency, because construction itself locks in a lot of energy.