🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the primary goal of climate politics. Spanning the diverse viewpoints, from local climate activists to senior UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Coverage systems, property, hydrological and spatial policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this structural framing avoids questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen countless political battles, including the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about ethics 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 limited to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the economic pressure, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating 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 ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Emerging Policy Conflicts

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to subject 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The difference is stark: one approach uses cost indicators to encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation 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 exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will prevail.