🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the singular goal of climate governance. Across the political spectrum, from local climate advocates to high-level UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the organizing logic 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 exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, hydrological and spatial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we respond to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Governmental Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, enhancing flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this infrastructure-centric framing avoids questions about the organizations that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact 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 threatens to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers warned of 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 historic lows – 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 establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than authentic societal debate.

From Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, covering the eco-friendly markets 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 fights about ethics and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, public child services and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from relocating 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 political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Framing

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

Developing Strategic Battles

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to expose 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 difference is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through market pressure – while the other allocates public resources that permit them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more immediate reality: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will triumph.