🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the singular goal of climate politics. Spanning the ideological range, from local climate advocates to high-level UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, hydrological and land use policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing avoids questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. 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 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 political crises – 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 specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, spanning the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about principles and mediating between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas 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 connects climate to the economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely destroy 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 familiar problems made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled 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.

Emerging Governmental Battles

The battlefield 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 vulnerable regions like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide comprehensive public disaster insurance. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of organized relocation through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that enable 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 neglected. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more present truth: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will succeed.