🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the central objective of climate politics. Spanning the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to senior UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, hydrological and spatial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a altered and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the institutions 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 backstop high-risk regions? Do we maintain 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 enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. 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 threatens to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. 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 decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will establish completely opposing visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Transitioning From Specialist Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about ethics and balancing between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something totally unprecedented, but as existing challenges made worse: more people excluded 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Developing Governmental Battles

The landscape 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 danger zones like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide complete governmental protection. The divergence is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other dedicates 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 neglected. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more immediate reality: 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 triumph.