🔗 Share this article

For a long time, preventing climate change” has been the primary goal of climate politics. Across the political spectrum, from local climate advocates to senior UN negotiators, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has arrived and its material impacts are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, property, water and land use policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the federal government guarantee high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers toiling in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing 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 cut their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode radically distinct visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than genuine political contestation.

Moving Beyond Specialist Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen countless political battles, covering the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the doomsday perspective that has long dominated 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 manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems 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 continuous with existing societal conflicts.

Developing Policy Conflicts

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 price signaling to prod people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that allow them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will succeed.