🔗 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 campaigners to senior UN delegates, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future crisis has been the central focus of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Coverage systems, housing, water and spatial policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a changed and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this infrastructure-centric framing ignores questions about the organizations that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government 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 working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we implement 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks 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 equip 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 provided funds to Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we answer to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the sustainable business 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 ethics and balancing between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the politically progressive 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 no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overcome 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 known issues made worse: more people forced out 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 separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to current ideological battles.

Developing Strategic Conflicts

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 subject 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 contrast is stark: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that enable them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the sole concentration 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 which perspective will triumph.