🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the singular goal of climate politics. Spanning the diverse viewpoints, from community-based climate activists to senior UN representatives, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass struggles over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, property, water and spatial policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this infrastructure-centric framing avoids questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the federal government backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for specialists and technicians rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about principles and mediating between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Forming Strategic Battles

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in danger zones like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide comprehensive public disaster insurance. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that enable them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will triumph.