🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the primary goal of climate policy. Throughout the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to elite UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also include debates over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Coverage systems, property, water and spatial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and retrofitting 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. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government guarantee high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing 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 paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than genuine political contestation.

Transitioning From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. 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 ineffective, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, including the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the domain of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we abandon the apocalyptic framing that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force 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 completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Developing Governmental Battles

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to expose 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other allocates public resources that enable them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will prevail.