🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the singular goal of climate politics. Spanning the ideological range, from local climate activists to high-level UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the central focus of climate plans.

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 embrace debates over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, hydrological and territorial policies, national labor markets, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the organizations 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 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 enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. 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 countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving 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 paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, spanning the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and negotiating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, public child services and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the apocalyptic framing 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 manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Developing Strategic 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 subject 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 stark: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the exclusive focus 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 which perspective will prevail.