🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the singular goal of climate governance. Across the diverse viewpoints, from grassroots climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, aquatic and land use policies, employment sectors, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities guarantee high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. 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 widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – 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 societal challenges – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

From Specialist Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the prevailing wisdom that economic tools 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 any number of political battles, spanning the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about ethics and negotiating between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, 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 – reforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Beyond Doomsday Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the apocalyptic framing that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something completely novel, but as known issues 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather part of existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Policy Debates

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 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 difference is stark: one approach uses economic incentives to prod people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of organized relocation through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that enable 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 singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures 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.