🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the central aim of climate politics. Across the diverse viewpoints, from local climate advocates to high-level UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, property, hydrological and territorial policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Political Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing ignores questions about the organizations that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we implement 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 vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are conflicts about values and balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

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 decarbonization. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and no-cost transportation 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 fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something utterly new, 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 decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Emerging Governmental Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to subject 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 stark: one approach uses economic incentives to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that enable 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 hides 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 which perspective will prevail.