🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the singular goal of climate politics. Spanning the political spectrum, from local climate activists to senior UN delegates, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society handles climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, aquatic and spatial policies, national labor markets, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities guarantee high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers toiling in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. 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 risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers proposed 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 unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Specialist Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, covering the green capitalism 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 coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and negotiating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that lease stabilization, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we abandon the apocalyptic framing that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Forming Policy Conflicts

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other allocates 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 abandoned. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures 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 what ideology will prevail.