🔗 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 advocates to senior UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass struggles over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, hydrological and territorial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a changed and increasingly volatile climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing ignores questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government guarantee high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist 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 imaginary. 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 widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of 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 unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Technocratic Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of decarbonization. Even the ideologically forward 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 no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Catastrophic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Developing Policy Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The contrast is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other commits public resources that allow them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more immediate reality: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.