🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the central objective of climate politics. Throughout the ideological range, from community-based climate activists to elite UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include struggles over how society handles climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Coverage systems, housing, aquatic and territorial policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this structural framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the federal government support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we implement 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to fit 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 decrease their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Technocratic Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the dominant belief that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous 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 public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about values and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing 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 – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something utterly new, but as familiar problems made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Emerging Policy Conflicts

The battlefield 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 vulnerable regions like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide universal catastrophe coverage. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates public resources that allow them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more present truth: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will prevail.