🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the singular objective of climate policy. Throughout the political spectrum, from community-based climate campaigners to elite UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Coverage systems, housing, hydrological and territorial policies, employment sectors, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we respond to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Ecological vs. Political Impacts

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for extreme weather events. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to act independently, or should the central administration support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. 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 endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about principles and negotiating between competing interests, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, 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 – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Doomsday Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something completely novel, but as known issues made worse: more people forced 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 separate engineering problem, then, but rather part of current ideological battles.

Forming Governmental Conflicts

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 high-risk areas like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide universal catastrophe coverage. The contrast is pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates public resources that permit them to continue living 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 sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more immediate reality: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will prevail.