🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the primary aim of climate policy. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from community-based climate campaigners to elite UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society handles climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, property, hydrological and land use policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against ocean encroachment, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing ignores questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens 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 equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells 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 reduce their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode radically distinct visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than real ideological struggle.

Transitioning From Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about values and mediating between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare 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 fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Forming Strategic Conflicts

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended 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 price signaling to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to remain 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 masks 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 triumph.