🔗 Share this article

For many years, preventing climate change” has been the singular goal of climate politics. Throughout the ideological range, from grassroots climate advocates to senior UN negotiators, lowering carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come 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 embrace struggles over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, aquatic and territorial policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we respond to a altered and increasingly volatile climate.

Natural vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this structural framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving 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 answer to these political crises – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the eco-friendly markets 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about principles and mediating 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 emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services 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 carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Catastrophic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems made worse: more people priced 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Developing Policy Debates

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to expose 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 complete governmental protection. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – 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 neglected. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe hides 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 triumph.