As I write this short essay, I am receiving news via WhatsApp from friends in northern Namibia that a prolonged drought is coming to an end amid torrential rain of the delayed 2019–20 rainy season. The drought has exerted a tight grip on southwestern Africa over the past six years. Two states of emergency were declared in Namibia over this period, and the multiyear drought has had a massive negative impact on the national economy. The drought also devastated the cattle herds of pastoralist communities with whom I have been working for many years. There was much talk that this drought was a harbinger of the localized effects that climate change would have on semi-arid savannahs of southwestern Africa in the twenty-first century. Indeed, climate change projections identify northwestern Namibia as a focal zone within the African continent for some of the most acute impacts of global climate change (Bollig 2020). At the same time that I was doing my last stint of fieldwork in northwestern Namibia in early 2019, the cyclones Idai and Kenneth devastated Mozambique and parts of Zimbabwe; in northwestern Kenya, people were killed by floods and landslides triggered by heavy rainfall in November 2019. The frequency of climatic perturbations portends comprehensive socioecological changes. Emergencies officially declared or locally experienced are becoming the order of the day—climate-induced disasters are increasingly routinized. A great deal of development aid is geared toward achieving greater resilience rather than achieving more equal distributions of wealth, health care, or other public goods. Allow me to suggest a reframing of this symposium to pose the following question: “How will climate change frame economic anthropology?” Let me clarify my point in three short arguments. First, the transitions brought about by climate change include wide-ranging effects on human lives and livelihoods. However, anthropological literature on climate change has had little to say about the wider material dynamics of climate change, although these are also comprehensive: shifting species compositions, water cycles, temperature patterns, resource availability, and so on. The description of such changes is certainly not a task that anthropologists should leave to ecologists alone. While the materiality of climate change certainly necessitates closer collaboration with natural scientists, anthropology will have to develop its own approach to material aspects of climate change that go beyond effects on human lives and livelihoods. As a consequence of global climate change, species compositions are changing profoundly (Hellmann 2008), implying the historicization and politicization of such nonhuman assemblages. Haraway (2015, 160) argues for a synthesis of concepts including the Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, and Chthulucene and for the necessity for “refuges, to make possible partial and robust biological-cultural-political-technological recuperation and recomposition, which must include mourning irreversible losses.” As a consequence of climate change adaptations, comprehensive environmental and infrastructural planning (Kreike 2013) is also occurring: dikes on the shores of Pacific islands, extensive reforested areas in Africa, and water-harvesting infrastructures in the Sahel are among numerous measures aimed at establishing climate-change resilience (Bollig 2014). Comprehensive geo-engineering measures aimed at establishing a “good” Anthropocene may follow. Second, from Polanyi's (1957) The Great Transformation to Wolf's (2010) Europe and the People without History and Scott's (1998) Seeing like a State, the social sciences in general, and economic anthropology in particular, are part of a long and proud tradition of theorizing grand economic transformations. Yet economic anthropology (and perhaps anthropology in general) has done comparatively little to document and analyze the entanglements of global capitalist economies and global climate change—unlike economics (Stern 2006), sociology (Giddens 2009), and history (Chakrabarty 2009). Economic anthropology can make (and has; see, e.g., Maldonado 2018) important contributions to both macro and micro social science approaches by shedding light on the interface of global drivers of climate change with reconfigured patterns of local production, distribution, and consumption (e.g., deforestation and land grabs owed to palm oil plantations). Such studies would add to our understanding of the interrelations between growing inequality, rapid globalization, and climate change. Historian Dipesh Chakrabarty (2009, 220) argued that climate change, “refracted through global capital, will no doubt accentuate the logic of inequality.” Economic anthropologists, in the tradition of Eric Wolf, are well situated to examine these processes by differentiating winners from losers at both local levels and global scales and to show how local and global inequalities are induced and exacerbated by patterns of climate change. As governments around the world deal with such developments, there is a risk that “adaptation-to-climate-change” models of governance will reproduce neocolonial relations and pave the way for expanding capitalist market mechanisms into marginal areas of the Global South. Savannah landscapes, rainforests, and wetlands, which until recently were peripheral to global capitalist production, become new resource frontiers (cf. Tsing 2011), especially as their monetized “ecosystem services” are earmarked as potential buffers against climate change. Adaptation-to-climate-change governance strategies are firmly embedded in the global capitalist economy, and “good” adaptive strategies are those that pay for themselves. I am convinced that economic anthropologists have all the theoretical background and (to me more important here) the methodological skills bridging the micro/macro gap within a sound ethnographic approach to contributing meaningfully to the global debate. Third, beyond approaches to national and regional governance, climate change projections have recently figured as strategic keys for planetary future-making projects. When looking at the many charts, graphs, and maps addressing climate change in various subregions of the world, we quickly realize that most graphic representations relate to the future—sometimes the next decade or two, but more often the final decades of the twenty-first century. Predictions about the future are taken as arguments and justifications for both large-scale wildlife conservation projects and also large-scale mining enterprises—both projects are less affected by drought than smallholder agriculture, for example, and both are more economically productive, from a neoliberal economic standpoint, as they either attract increasingly large numbers of ecotourists or profit from rising ore prices on the world market. Adaptation-to-climate-change projects often induce rural communities to organize in community-based organizations modeled after global blueprints for sustainable common-property resource management. These new forms of conservation are embedded in global financial flows and shaped by discourses on planetary future-making. They are meant to sustain biodiversity, provide significant “carbon sinks,” and promote “green” development and greener economies under conditions of global climate change. Typically, such efforts are weighed against other, even “better adapted” (viz. more profitable) solutions: extractive economies, hydroelectric production, and perhaps large-scale irrigation. At times, such considerations even lead to arguments for “sacrifice zones.” Indeed, the timid Paris 2015 agreement to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°–2°C may be viewed as demarcating such sacrifice zones in the Pacific, in high-altitude regions, and along desert margins! The economic sociologist Jens Beckert (2016) recently argued that capitalist economies are often motivated by fictional expectations. Indeed, this nexus among fictional expectations about geoengineering and socioeconomic dynamics owed to imminent climate changes may constitute a core concern of economic anthropology in the near future.