🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the central aim of climate governance. Throughout the ideological range, from community-based climate campaigners to high-level UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has arrived and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, property, water and spatial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to function without restriction, 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 guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, 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 endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells 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 governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, spanning 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but high-consumption, 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 transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people forced 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 unique specialist task, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Forming Strategic Battles

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in high-risk areas 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 cost indicators to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates public resources that permit them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more immediate reality: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will prevail.