🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the singular aim of climate politics. Spanning the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to high-level UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, water and territorial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to act independently, or should the federal government support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens 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 install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Transitioning From Technocratic Frameworks

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 commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, including the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are conflicts about ethics and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely carbon accounting.

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 emissions reduction. 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 moving for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as known issues made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged 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.

Emerging Strategic Battles

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 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The contrast is pronounced: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that allow them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more present truth: 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 prevail.