🔗 Share this article

For many years, preventing climate change” has been the primary objective of climate politics. Throughout the political spectrum, from local climate advocates to senior UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society handles climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, hydrological and land use policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the institutions 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 federal government backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we establish 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to fit 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the prevailing wisdom that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus shifted to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen countless 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about principles and balancing between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain 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 associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more budget-friendly, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Doomsday Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Forming Policy Battles

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 vulnerable regions like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide complete governmental protection. The difference is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other commits public resources that enable them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: 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 triumph.