🔗 Share this article

For many years, preventing climate change” has been the primary aim of climate policy. Across the ideological range, from local climate advocates to senior UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to prevent future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also include debates over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Coverage systems, residential sectors, hydrological and land use policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing ignores questions about the institutions that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the national authorities guarantee high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, 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 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 years of water scarcity 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 cut their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Expert-Led Frameworks

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless 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 state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about principles and mediating between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that lease stabilization, public child services and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more budget-friendly, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the apocalyptic framing that has long characterized climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force 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 completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people excluded 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Developing Policy Conflicts

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 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 difference is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other commits 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 abandoned. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will prevail.