🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the primary goal of climate governance. Spanning the ideological range, from grassroots climate advocates to elite UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass struggles over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, aquatic and territorial policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a altered and increasingly volatile climate.

Ecological vs. Political Effects

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this structural framing ignores questions about the systems that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the central administration support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones 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 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Transitioning From Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, including the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and negotiating between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate moved 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 links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, 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 – transforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems 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 connected to ongoing political struggles.

Forming Governmental Debates

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to take shape. 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 complete governmental protection. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other allocates public resources that enable them to remain 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 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 which perspective will prevail.