🔗 Share this article

For many years, preventing climate change” has been the primary objective of climate governance. Across the political spectrum, from community-based climate activists to high-level UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, water and spatial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Natural vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers laboring in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought 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 reduce their water usage. How we react to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Expert-Led Frameworks

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the prevailing wisdom that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. 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 fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about values and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve 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 connects climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but high-consumption, 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 stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the apocalyptic framing that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something completely novel, but as known issues made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced 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 Policy Battles

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 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 pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other commits public resources that permit them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

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