🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the primary goal of climate governance. Spanning the ideological range, from local climate advocates to elite UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its material impacts are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Coverage systems, property, water and spatial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against ocean encroachment, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores 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 operate freely, or should the federal government backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. 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 risks to trigger a national insurance crisis. 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 years of water scarcity 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 cut their water usage. How we answer to these political crises – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Technocratic Systems

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus moved to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning the sustainable business 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 fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains 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, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more budget-friendly, 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 – transforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long prevailed climate discourse. In insisting 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 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 destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Forming Policy Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The contrast is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates public resources that allow them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will prevail.