🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the central goal of climate governance. Across the political spectrum, from grassroots climate activists to senior UN negotiators, lowering carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, water and territorial policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the systems 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 support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we establish 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 risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells 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 societal challenges – and those to come – will establish completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

From Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the prevailing wisdom that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning the green capitalism 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 struggles about ethics and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Doomsday Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the apocalyptic framing that has long characterized climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as known issues made worse: more people forced 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Forming Governmental Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to expose 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 contrast is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates public resources that allow them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the exclusive focus 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 whose vision will prevail.