🔗 Share this article

For decades, preventing climate change” has been the central goal of climate politics. Throughout the ideological range, from community-based climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also embrace conflicts over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Coverage systems, housing, aquatic and spatial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we respond to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Natural vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing ignores questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers toiling in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens 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 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 reduce their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the dominant belief that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas 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 cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, public child services and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, 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 avert future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled 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.

Forming Strategic Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to expose 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 divergence is sharp: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that permit 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 singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more current situation: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.