🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the central goal of climate policy. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from grassroots climate advocates to high-level UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its material impacts are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, aquatic and spatial policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric 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 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 imaginary. 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 widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened 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 record 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 respond 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 engineering issue for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

From Specialist 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 ineffectual, the focus shifted to countrywide 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 social democracy 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 balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of decarbonization. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility 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 fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely destroy 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 familiar problems made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Emerging Strategic Conflicts

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 complete governmental protection. The difference is sharp: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more present truth: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will triumph.