🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the central goal of climate politics. Spanning the ideological range, from community-based climate campaigners to elite UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include struggles over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, aquatic and spatial policies, employment sectors, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Political Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to act independently, or should the federal government backstop high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish 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 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode radically distinct visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Technocratic Systems

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that market mechanisms 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 genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, covering the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about values and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A fully inclusive 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 reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Doomsday Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the doomsday perspective that has long characterized climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something completely novel, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced 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 existing societal conflicts.

Developing Policy Battles

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 high-risk areas like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide comprehensive public disaster insurance. The difference is stark: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through market pressure – while the other allocates public resources that allow them to stay in place 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 immediate reality: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will succeed.