A controversial issue regarding the adaptation of agriculture to climate change concerns the question of what role genome editing should play in the field of plant breeding. Intensive discussions are currently taking place at the European level whether the New Genomic Techniques (NGT), directed mutagenesis and cisgenesis in particular, should be regulated more liberally than conventional transgenic genetic engineering. This seems to be based, among other things, on the expectation that genome editing can be used to better manage the necessary adaptation to climate change, also in view of the fact that plant-based nutrition is to play a much greater role in the future. From an ethical point of view, two reservations can be raised against this assessment. When discussing these reservations, it should be borne in mind that the adaptation of agricultural crop production to climate change is urgent and should be done in line with the mitigation of greenhouse gases, especially methane and nitrous oxide, over the next ten to twenty years. Firstly, given the volatility of cultivation conditions and the associated demands for successful adaptation - which is not only about better protection against pests, but also about increased drought and heat and, at the same time, more frequent heavy precipitation - it is questionable whether NGT will be able to make a significant contribution to the development of crops adapted to the challenges of climate change in the given tight timeframe. Assigning them such a role nevertheless is to make a bet on the future that cannot be ethically justified in view of the urgency of the adaptation needs and the potential damage that could occur if the adaptation fails to succeed. This means, secondly, avoiding path dependencies as far as possible. Ethically, NGT are to play at best a minor role, provided their risks are acceptable and provided that they actually contribute to adaptation and do not impede or foreclose alternative adaptation approaches.