🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the singular objective of climate policy. Across the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its real-world consequences are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society handles climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, hydrological and land use policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the institutions that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. 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 endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to equip 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 provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we react to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus shifted to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, covering the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about values and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people forced out 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with ongoing political struggles.

Developing Strategic Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. 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 contrast is sharp: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other allocates 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 transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will prevail.