🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the central goal of climate governance. Spanning the ideological range, from local climate advocates to elite UN delegates, reducing carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on averting future catastrophes. It must now also embrace conflicts over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, water and territorial policies, workforce systems, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a altered and more unpredictable climate.

Environmental vs. Political Effects

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing sidesteps 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 central administration support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we implement federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas 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 securing an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells 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 respond to these political crises – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Transitioning From Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that market mechanisms 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 numerous political battles, spanning the eco-friendly markets 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 fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about principles and mediating between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

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 carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that lease stabilization, public child services and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we abandon the apocalyptic framing that has long characterized climate discourse. In arguing 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 materialize not as something completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people excluded 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 connected to ongoing political struggles.

Forming Governmental Battles

The battlefield 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 encourage people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that allow 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 discarded. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more present truth: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will prevail.