🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the central goal of climate policy. Across the diverse viewpoints, from grassroots climate advocates to senior UN delegates, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, aquatic and land use policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we adapt to a changed and increasingly volatile climate.

Ecological vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing ignores questions about the institutions that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. 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 record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we respond to these political crises – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts 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.

Moving Beyond Specialist Systems

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol represented the prevailing wisdom that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, covering 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 fights about ethics and mediating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that rent freezes, comprehensive family support and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the apocalyptic framing that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something completely novel, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather connected to existing societal conflicts.

Developing Policy Battles

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. 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 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 sharp: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that permit them to remain 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 obscures a more immediate reality: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will succeed.