🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the primary aim of climate policy. Across the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to senior UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, aquatic and territorial policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. 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 national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Expert-Led Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the prevailing wisdom that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen countless political battles, including the green capitalism 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 conflicts about values and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something utterly new, but as existing challenges made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Policy Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended reforms to the property insurance market to subject 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The difference is stark: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that allow them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

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