🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the central aim of climate governance. Spanning the diverse viewpoints, from local climate campaigners to high-level UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its material impacts are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, hydrological and territorial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Political Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing ignores questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue 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 companies' discretion, or do we establish 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will establish 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.

From Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the prevailing wisdom that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long prevailed climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded 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 part of current ideological battles.

Developing Policy Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. 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 high-risk areas like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide universal catastrophe coverage. The contrast is stark: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of organized relocation through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that allow 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 exclusive focus 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 succeed.