🔗 Share this article

For many years, preventing climate change” has been the singular goal of climate policy. Spanning the political spectrum, from community-based climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its material impacts are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also include debates over how society handles climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, property, water and land use policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be radically remade as we adapt to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the organizations that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government guarantee high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers toiling in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. 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 national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to install 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 provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we react to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than genuine political contestation.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Systems

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, including the eco-friendly markets 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 values and mediating between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the doomsday perspective that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as existing challenges made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather continuous with ongoing political struggles.

Forming Strategic Battles

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to expose homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in danger zones 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 sharp: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates public resources that permit them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

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