🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the central goal of climate politics. Spanning the political spectrum, from local climate advocates to elite UN delegates, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace conflicts over how society handles climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, hydrological and territorial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a altered and increasingly volatile climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural 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 function without restriction, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers laboring in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas 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 achieving an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought 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 cut their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

Moving Beyond 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 economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen countless political battles, including 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more economical, but energy-intensive, 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 manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something utterly new, but as familiar problems made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged 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 current ideological battles.

Developing Governmental Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to expose 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses economic incentives to push people out of endangered zones – 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 rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.