🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the central objective of climate politics. Across the political spectrum, from local climate advocates to elite UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Coverage systems, residential sectors, hydrological and land use policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. 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 threatens to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode completely opposing 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 authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the prevailing wisdom that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and negotiating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate shifted from the domain of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Narratives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power 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 completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather part of current ideological battles.

Developing Strategic Debates

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in high-risk areas 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 stark: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates 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 singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more immediate reality: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will prevail.