🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the central aim of climate politics. Across the political spectrum, from grassroots climate activists to senior UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Coverage systems, property, hydrological and spatial policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we respond to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural 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 function without restriction, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, 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 danger zones 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 install 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 provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus shifted to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and balancing between competing interests, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, public child services and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more budget-friendly, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Catastrophic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people excluded 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather part of existing societal conflicts.

Forming Policy Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. 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 vulnerable regions like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide comprehensive public disaster insurance. The divergence is stark: one approach uses economic incentives to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe hides 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 whose vision will prevail.