🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the central goal of climate politics. Throughout the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to high-level UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also include struggles over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, property, hydrological and land use policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government guarantee high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. 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 decades of drought 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 cut their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed 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 Expert-Led Systems

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 growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about ethics and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A truly comprehensive 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 transforming everyday life.

Beyond Catastrophic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people forced out 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Policy Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 stark: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of organized relocation through commercial dynamics – while the other commits public resources that allow them to remain 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 hides a more immediate reality: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will prevail.