🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the singular aim of climate policy. Spanning the political spectrum, from grassroots climate advocates to senior UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, aquatic and spatial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Governmental Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing avoids questions about the systems that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – 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 specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the prevailing wisdom that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the green capitalism 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 struggles about principles and balancing between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we abandon the apocalyptic framing that has long dominated 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 materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as existing challenges made worse: more people excluded 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather part of current ideological battles.

Emerging Governmental Battles

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended reforms to the property insurance market to expose 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other commits public resources that permit them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more present truth: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will prevail.