🔗 Share this article

For a long time, halting climate change” has been the singular aim of climate policy. Throughout the political spectrum, from community-based climate campaigners to high-level UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass conflicts over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, property, water and land use policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Governmental Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we implement 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 vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. 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 record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we react to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

From Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. 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 ineffectual, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, including the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about principles and balancing between competing interests, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the economic pressure, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare 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 emissions reductions framework. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In insisting 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 appear not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather continuous with ongoing political struggles.

Developing Policy Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. 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 high-risk areas 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 encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other commits 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 exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more present truth: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will prevail.