🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the primary objective of climate politics. Across the diverse viewpoints, from community-based climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, lowering 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 experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society addresses climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, water and territorial policies, national labor markets, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we respond to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Political Effects

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this structural framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the central administration support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring 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 endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought 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 respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Models

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 commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about principles and mediating between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled 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 existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Policy Debates

The battlefield 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 vulnerable regions like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide universal catastrophe coverage. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – while the other commits public resources that allow 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 sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more present truth: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will triumph.