🔗 Share this article

For a long time, halting climate change” has been the singular goal of climate governance. Throughout the diverse viewpoints, from community-based climate activists to elite UN negotiators, lowering carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

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 include struggles over how society handles climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, property, water and territorial policies, employment sectors, and regional commerce – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against sea level rise, improving flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for extreme weather events. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the central administration backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers laboring in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond vulnerable areas in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately winning an agreement to equip 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 paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish radically distinct visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond 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 increasing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus shifted to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, spanning the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are fights about ethics and mediating between competing interests, 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 carbon elimination. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that housing cost controls, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the doomsday perspective that has long dominated climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something completely novel, but as existing challenges made worse: more people excluded 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 part of existing societal conflicts.

Developing Governmental Battles

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to develop. 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 danger zones like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide comprehensive public disaster insurance. The divergence is sharp: one approach uses economic incentives to prod people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through commercial dynamics – while the other dedicates public resources that allow 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 neglected. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe masks 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 what ideology will prevail.