🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the central aim of climate policy. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from local climate campaigners to senior UN negotiators, lowering 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 experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society handles 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 adjust to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the institutions that will influence 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? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers proposed 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 unprecedented levels – 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 respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed radically distinct visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen countless political battles, including 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 coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are fights about values and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but high-consumption, 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 prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long dominated climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something completely novel, 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 decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Developing Strategic Debates

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 contrast is stark: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that enable them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will prevail.