🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the singular objective of climate politics. Throughout the ideological range, from community-based climate advocates to elite UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the organizing logic of climate policies.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being experienced. 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 altering economic and social life. Coverage systems, housing, hydrological and land use policies, national labor markets, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a altered and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this engineering-focused framing ignores questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a increase 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 winning an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at historic 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 respond to these governmental emergencies – 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 engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about principles and balancing between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields 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 associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long prevailed climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear 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 destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to existing societal conflicts.

Forming Strategic Debates

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to develop. 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The difference is pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through commercial dynamics – while the other commits public resources that permit 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 abandoned. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will succeed.