🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the singular goal of climate governance. Across the political spectrum, from community-based climate advocates to elite UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized 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 conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, aquatic and territorial policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Ecological vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the organizations that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers laboring in extreme heat to their management's decisions, 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 danger zones 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 equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus shifted to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, including the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about principles and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the domain of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more economical, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long characterized 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 materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as known issues made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Emerging Strategic 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 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 difference is pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that allow them to remain 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 hides a more current situation: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will succeed.