🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the singular goal of climate governance. Throughout the ideological range, from community-based climate campaigners to senior UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to prevent future crisis has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also include struggles over how society addresses climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, hydrological and land use policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the federal government support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of 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 historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than real ideological struggle.

From Specialist Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus shifted to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, including the eco-friendly markets 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 conflicts about values and balancing between competing interests, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with existing societal conflicts.

Developing Policy Battles

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 contrast is sharp: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage 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 transforming our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will succeed.