🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the primary aim of climate policy. Throughout the ideological range, from community-based climate activists to high-level UN negotiators, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society handles climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, aquatic and spatial policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we respond to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental 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 harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, 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 high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to fit 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 compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will embed radically distinct visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Specialist Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond 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 rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus moved to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, spanning the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are fights about principles and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the economic pressure, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems made worse: more people forced 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Forming Strategic Battles

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The divergence is sharp: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that allow them to stay in place 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 present truth: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will prevail.