🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the central aim of climate politics. Spanning the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to senior UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on averting future catastrophes. It must now also embrace conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, hydrological and spatial policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing ignores questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers toiling in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing 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 paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish completely opposing visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Specialist Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering 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 struggles about principles and mediating between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the doomsday perspective that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome 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 existing challenges made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Forming Governmental 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 stark: one approach uses economic incentives to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other commits public resources that allow 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 abandoned. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.