🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the central aim of climate policy. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from local climate campaigners to elite UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future crisis has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has arrived and its material impacts are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass struggles over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, property, aquatic and spatial policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be radically remade as we adapt to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the organizations that will shape 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 guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers proposed 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 record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

From Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, spanning the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are fights about ethics and mediating between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more budget-friendly, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems 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 separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Policy Conflicts

The battlefield 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The difference is sharp: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that allow 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 neglected. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: 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 triumph.