🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the primary goal of climate politics. Spanning the ideological range, from grassroots climate advocates to high-level UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, aquatic and land use policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. 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 backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose 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 increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record 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 encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning 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 coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are fights about values and balancing between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the apocalyptic framing 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 appear not as something utterly new, but as familiar problems made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Emerging Governmental Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 stark: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of organized relocation through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the exclusive focus 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 what ideology will triumph.