🔗 Share this article

For a long time, halting climate change” has been the central goal of climate policy. Across the ideological range, from local climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the organizing logic of climate policies.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include struggles over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, housing, water and spatial policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government support high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. 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 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 reduce their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – 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 specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, spanning the green capitalism 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 conflicts about ethics and mediating between competing interests, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas 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 economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more economical, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Beyond Doomsday Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the catastrophic narrative 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 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 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 separate engineering problem, then, but rather part of current ideological battles.

Forming Governmental Conflicts

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 sharp: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through economic forces – while the other dedicates 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 abandoned. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more present truth: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will prevail.