🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the central aim of climate policy. Throughout the ideological range, from grassroots climate activists to senior UN representatives, lowering carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, water and territorial policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to act independently, or should the central administration backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers toiling in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought 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 reduce their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than genuine political contestation.

Transitioning From Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the dominant belief that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing 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 sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about ethics and balancing between opposing agendas, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the economic pressure, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Transcending Catastrophic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the apocalyptic framing that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely destroy 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 existing challenges made worse: more people excluded 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Developing Policy Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. 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 danger zones 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 stark: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of organized relocation through commercial dynamics – 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 neglected. 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 reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will triumph.