🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the central aim of climate politics. Spanning the political spectrum, from grassroots climate activists to elite UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include debates over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Coverage systems, residential sectors, hydrological and land use policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a altered and increasingly volatile climate.

Ecological vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers working in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we enact 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 vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity 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 respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Technocratic Systems

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 commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, spanning 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 fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate shifted from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something completely novel, but as known issues made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Forming Strategic Conflicts

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 vulnerable regions 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 encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates 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 abandoned. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more immediate reality: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will triumph.