🔗 Share this article

For decades, “stopping climate change” has been the central goal of climate politics. Across the diverse viewpoints, from local climate campaigners to senior UN negotiators, lowering carbon emissions to prevent future crisis has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects 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 manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, water and spatial policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing avoids questions about the organizations that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their management's decisions, 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these battles 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 Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, covering the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are conflicts about principles and balancing between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate moved from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Catastrophic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Policy Battles

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The difference is stark: one approach uses cost indicators to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more immediate reality: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.