🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the primary aim of climate politics. Spanning the political spectrum, from community-based climate campaigners to elite UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its material impacts are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, water and land use policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this structural framing avoids questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to act independently, or should the central administration backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than authentic societal debate.

From 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 prevailing wisdom that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more budget-friendly, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Emerging Governmental Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to expose homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in high-risk areas like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide universal catastrophe coverage. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that allow them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

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