🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the singular objective of climate governance. Spanning the diverse viewpoints, from community-based climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, water and spatial policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a altered and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing ignores questions about the organizations 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 guarantee high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose 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 surge 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 widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened 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 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 respond to these political crises – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for specialists and technicians rather than genuine political contestation.

Transitioning From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the dominant belief that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, covering 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 struggles about ethics and negotiating between competing interests, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy 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 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 connected to current ideological battles.

Emerging Strategic Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 divergence is pronounced: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of vulnerable areas – 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 infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more immediate reality: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will prevail.