🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the primary aim of climate policy. Throughout the political spectrum, from local climate campaigners to elite UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass struggles over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, water and spatial policies, national labor markets, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we respond to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Natural vs. Governmental Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers toiling in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we establish 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 vulnerable areas 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 achieving an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for specialists and technicians rather than genuine political contestation.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Frameworks

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus moved to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous 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 ethics and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more budget-friendly, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the doomsday perspective that has long characterized climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Forming Strategic Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 difference is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that enable them to stay in place 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 exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more immediate reality: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will triumph.