🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the primary aim of climate policy. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from grassroots climate advocates to senior UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its real-world consequences are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, water and territorial policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be radically remade as we respond to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing ignores questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the central administration backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing 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 paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Specialist Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the sustainable business 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are conflicts about values and balancing between opposing agendas, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the economic pressure, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more budget-friendly, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced 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 continuous with ongoing political struggles.

Forming Strategic Conflicts

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The difference is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of organized relocation through market pressure – while the other commits public resources that enable them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe hides 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 what ideology will triumph.