🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the singular goal of climate policy. Spanning the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to senior UN delegates, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, aquatic and spatial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a altered and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Societal Effects

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, enhancing flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the institutions that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to act independently, or should the federal government guarantee high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we enact 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 endangers to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of 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 historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we answer to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope 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 Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the eco-friendly markets 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 coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are conflicts about ethics and balancing between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and subsidized mobility 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 truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the apocalyptic framing that has long characterized climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something totally unprecedented, 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Forming Governmental Debates

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in high-risk areas like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide complete governmental protection. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to encourage people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that enable them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

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