🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the singular objective of climate governance. Spanning the political spectrum, from local climate campaigners to high-level UN representatives, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its material impacts are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society manages climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, aquatic and spatial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against ocean encroachment, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to act independently, 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? Is it fair to expose 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 spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we respond to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

From Specialist Systems

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, spanning the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and balancing between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but resource-heavy, 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 – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long dominated 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 appear not as something totally unprecedented, 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 destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Forming Policy Battles

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. 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 complete governmental protection. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses cost indicators to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other allocates public resources that enable them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will triumph.