🔗 Share this article

For a long time, halting climate change” has been the primary aim of climate policy. Spanning the ideological range, from community-based climate advocates to elite UN representatives, lowering carbon emissions to prevent future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate policies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its material impacts are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society handles climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, water and spatial policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we adapt to a altered and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing avoids questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the national authorities guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit 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 threatens to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we answer to these political crises – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Transitioning From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen countless political battles, including the green capitalism 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 mining industry support in Germany. These are fights about values and balancing between opposing agendas, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the domain of technocratic elites to more familiar domains 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 cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Catastrophic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon 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 completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled 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.

Emerging Governmental Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. 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 vulnerable regions 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 pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of organized relocation through market pressure – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more current situation: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will triumph.