🔗 Share this article

For a long time, halting climate change” has been the central aim of climate governance. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from local climate activists to high-level UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on averting future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, water and territorial policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we adapt to a altered and growing unstable climate.

Natural vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the central administration backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we respond to these political crises – and those to come – will establish completely opposing visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than genuine political contestation.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Frameworks

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. 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 ineffective, the focus moved to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about values and mediating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained confined to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing 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 evident once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something completely novel, but as known issues made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced 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 Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 divergence is pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of at-risk locations – 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 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 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 triumph.