This presentation has two purposes: one conceptual and one normative. Conceptually, it distinguishes, in a new and robust manner, climate mitigation, adaptation and Loss & Damage policies. The basic idea is that there are limits to mitigation and adaptation and that these limits depend on, inter alia, (some mix of) physical, engineering, social and economic feasibility constraints. Given some limits and a time of evaluation, which impacts are mitigable, adaptable or losses and damages is determinate. This distinction determines which climate policies are mitigation, adaptation or L&D. Normatively, the presentation defends several claims about historical and causal responsibility regarding different climatic impacts falling within these categories. One important idea introduced is of climate-independent duties to adapt. The goal is to argue that historical emitters have a stronger link to climate Loss & Damage than to mitigation or adaptation duties.