🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the central aim of climate governance. Spanning the political spectrum, from local climate campaigners to elite UN delegates, curtailing carbon emissions to prevent future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society handles climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, aquatic and territorial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a altered and increasingly volatile climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving 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 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 provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. 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 risks 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 years of water scarcity left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at historic 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 societal challenges – and those to come – will encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Expert-Led Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the prevailing wisdom that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about principles and balancing between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people forced 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather part of current ideological battles.

Emerging Policy Battles

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended 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 contrast is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that enable them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more immediate reality: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will triumph.