🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the central objective of climate politics. Across the ideological range, from grassroots climate campaigners to elite UN negotiators, lowering carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include struggles over how society addresses climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, aquatic and spatial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a altered and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing ignores questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Transitioning From Technocratic Systems

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 market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus shifted to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, including 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 coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are fights about principles and balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the economic pressure, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A fully inclusive 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 Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon 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 totally unprecedented, 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 decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Developing Policy Battles

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 difference is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that enable 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 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 whose vision will prevail.