🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the primary goal of climate policy. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from local climate campaigners to elite UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society handles climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, water and spatial policies, national labor markets, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a altered and increasingly volatile climate.

Natural vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to act independently, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we provide 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 theoretical. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells 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 decrease their water usage. How we respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Transitioning From Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus shifted to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the green capitalism 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about principles and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert 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 claiming 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 utterly new, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced out 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 separate engineering problem, then, but rather continuous with existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Governmental Battles

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to subject 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 economic incentives to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other commits public resources that allow them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. 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 reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will succeed.