🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the central goal of climate policy. Throughout the ideological range, from local climate activists to senior UN negotiators, lowering carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come 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 embrace struggles over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, hydrological and territorial policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we respond to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing avoids questions about the systems that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to act independently, or should the federal government backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas 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 install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for specialists and technicians rather than genuine political contestation.

From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond 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 rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen countless political battles, spanning the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about ethics and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate moved from the realm of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced out 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Developing Policy Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through market pressure – while the other allocates public resources that permit them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more present truth: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will triumph.