🔗 Share this article

For a long time, halting climate change” has been the primary objective of climate politics. Across the diverse viewpoints, from community-based climate activists to high-level UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, water and spatial policies, national labor markets, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Natural vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the federal government support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers working in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to fit air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – 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 react to these political crises – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles 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.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Models

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the prevailing wisdom that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, covering the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are conflicts about values and negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects 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 pollution decrease lens. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we reject the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something completely novel, but as familiar problems 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather connected to existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Strategic Debates

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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses price signaling to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through commercial dynamics – while the other commits public resources that enable them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

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