🔗 Share this article

For many years, preventing climate change” has been the singular goal of climate governance. Across the political spectrum, from community-based climate advocates to high-level UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

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 embrace struggles over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, water and territorial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a changed and increasingly volatile climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing ignores questions about the organizations that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the central administration backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed radically distinct visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Transitioning From Technocratic Frameworks

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 market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about values and negotiating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, comprehensive family support and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the doomsday perspective that has long prevailed climate discourse. In insisting 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 totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather connected to existing societal conflicts.

Developing Governmental Battles

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The divergence is stark: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other commits public resources that enable 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 neglected. 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 whose vision will succeed.