🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the singular goal of climate governance. Throughout the political spectrum, from community-based climate activists to senior UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, property, aquatic and spatial policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this structural framing ignores questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we implement 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 threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about values and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Catastrophic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long dominated climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people priced out 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Developing Strategic Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 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 sharp: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through market pressure – while the other commits public resources that permit them to stay in place 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 masks a more present truth: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.