🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the central goal of climate politics. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from grassroots climate campaigners to elite UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, hydrological and territorial policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a changed and increasingly volatile climate.

Natural vs. Political Impacts

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities guarantee high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist 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 establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing 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 react to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

Moving Beyond 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 commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus shifted to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of 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 fights about values and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more affordable, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In claiming 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 manifest not as something utterly new, but as existing challenges made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather part of current ideological battles.

Forming Governmental Battles

The landscape 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 contrast is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to remain 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 singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will succeed.