🔗 Share this article

For decades, “stopping climate change” has been the primary goal of climate governance. Spanning the ideological range, from grassroots climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society addresses climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, property, aquatic and spatial policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Natural vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this structural framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will shape 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? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks 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 install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the dominant belief that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, covering the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are conflicts about ethics and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields 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 associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something completely novel, 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 destroyed 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 recommended reforms to the property insurance market to subject homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in danger zones 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 sharp: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other commits public resources that enable them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

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