🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the primary objective of climate policy. Across the political spectrum, from grassroots climate activists to high-level UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, aquatic and land use policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Natural vs. Political Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, enhancing flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing ignores questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers working in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. 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 risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to fit 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, covering the sustainable business 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 coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are fights about values and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Doomsday Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely destroy 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 familiar problems made worse: more people forced out 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 continuous with current ideological battles.

Emerging Governmental Conflicts

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to subject 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 complete governmental protection. The contrast is stark: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that permit them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more immediate reality: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will triumph.