🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the primary objective of climate governance. Spanning the political spectrum, from local climate advocates to high-level UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society addresses climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Coverage systems, residential sectors, aquatic and territorial policies, employment sectors, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adjust to a changed and increasingly volatile climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and adapting buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing ignores questions about the organizations that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the central administration guarantee high-risk regions? Do we maintain 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 implement 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 high-risk markets 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 achieving an agreement to fit 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 cut their water usage. How we react to these political crises – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, covering the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about values and mediating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced 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 Governmental Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. 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 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 divergence is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that allow 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 discarded. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more current situation: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will prevail.