🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the singular objective of climate governance. Throughout the ideological range, from community-based climate activists to senior UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, property, hydrological and spatial policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – 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: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the central administration support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect 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 hypothetical. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. 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 years of water scarcity 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 answer to these political crises – and those to come – will encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Expert-Led Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the prevailing wisdom that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and mediating between competing interests, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more familiar domains 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 connects climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Doomsday Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In claiming 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 materialize not as something completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Forming Strategic Debates

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to take shape. 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 danger zones like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide complete governmental protection. The divergence is sharp: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of planned withdrawal 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 neglected. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more present truth: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will triumph.