🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the singular goal of climate politics. Across the ideological range, from local climate activists to high-level UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences 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 addresses climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, water and territorial policies, employment sectors, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against ocean encroachment, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the central administration backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish 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 risks to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to equip 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 decrease their water usage. How we respond to these political crises – and those to come – will encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Specialist Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the prevailing wisdom that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, spanning the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about principles and negotiating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that rent freezes, comprehensive family support 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 truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent 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 dominated climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power 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 completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Emerging Strategic Battles

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The difference is pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of organized relocation through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that allow them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more immediate reality: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will triumph.