🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the primary aim of climate governance. Across the diverse viewpoints, from community-based climate advocates to elite UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also embrace struggles over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, property, aquatic and territorial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adapt to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Governmental Effects

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting 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. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities guarantee high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers toiling in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we establish 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers proposed 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 historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the dominant belief that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, covering the eco-friendly markets 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 fights about values and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which links climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, universal childcare and free public transit will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more budget-friendly, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an overwhelming power that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as familiar problems made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries decimated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Emerging Strategic Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended 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 pronounced: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of vulnerable areas – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that permit them to remain safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more present truth: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will succeed.