🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the primary goal of climate governance. Spanning the diverse viewpoints, from community-based climate activists to elite UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its real-world consequences are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Coverage systems, property, hydrological and territorial policies, national labor markets, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Political Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities 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 working in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of 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 historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we answer to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous 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 lithium nationalization in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about values and balancing between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that lease stabilization, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the catastrophic narrative 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 blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something utterly new, but as familiar problems made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Emerging Policy Debates

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to subject 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The contrast is stark: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that allow them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more immediate reality: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will prevail.