🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the central objective of climate governance. Spanning the ideological range, from grassroots climate advocates to high-level UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass struggles over how society addresses climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, water and spatial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Governmental Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the central administration backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold 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 companies' discretion, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to fit 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 decrease their water usage. How we answer to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and mediating between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, public child services and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced 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 existing societal conflicts.

Developing Strategic Debates

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested 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 complete governmental protection. The contrast is stark: one approach uses economic incentives to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other commits public resources that allow them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.