🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the central aim of climate policy. Spanning the political spectrum, from local climate activists to high-level UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society handles climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, property, hydrological and territorial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we respond to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Environmental vs. Political Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist 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 implement 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers 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 equip 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 paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Systems

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, spanning the eco-friendly markets 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 conflicts about values and mediating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as known issues made worse: more people priced 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 connected to existing societal conflicts.

Developing Strategic Battles

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 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 divergence is pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that permit 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 altering our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.