🔗 Share this article

For many years, preventing climate change” has been the primary objective of climate governance. Throughout the political spectrum, from community-based climate campaigners to senior UN negotiators, reducing 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 experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include struggles over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, water and land use policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a altered and increasingly volatile climate.

Natural vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing ignores questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the central administration support high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to fit 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 paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning 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 balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, comprehensive family support and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we move beyond the doomsday perspective 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 manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Forming Strategic Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 contrast is stark: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other commits public resources that enable 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 abandoned. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will prevail.