🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the singular aim of climate politics. Throughout the political spectrum, from community-based climate advocates to high-level UN delegates, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include struggles over how society handles climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, water and territorial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Natural vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing avoids questions about the organizations that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to equip 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians 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 transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about principles and negotiating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, public child services and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Forming Policy Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended reforms to the property insurance market to subject homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in vulnerable regions like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide universal catastrophe coverage. The divergence is stark: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates public resources that permit them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more present truth: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.