🔗 Share this article

For a long time, halting climate change” has been the singular aim of climate policy. Spanning the political spectrum, from community-based climate advocates to senior UN delegates, curtailing carbon emissions to prevent future catastrophe has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, hydrological and spatial policies, employment sectors, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Natural vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the central administration 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 toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a spike 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 proposed 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode radically distinct visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, including the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about ethics and balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become unaware 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 obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Emerging Strategic Battles

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested 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 complete governmental protection. The divergence is stark: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other commits public resources that permit 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 discarded. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe hides 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 which perspective will triumph.