🔗 Share this article

For a long time, halting climate change” has been the singular objective of climate policy. Spanning the political spectrum, from community-based climate campaigners to elite UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future catastrophe has been the organizing logic of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its real-world consequences are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass struggles over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, water and land use policies, employment sectors, and local economies – all will need to be completely overhauled as we respond to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Environmental vs. Political 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 modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the systems 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 support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. 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 record 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 react to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Expert-Led Systems

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the prevailing wisdom that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus moved to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen any number of political battles, including the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are struggles about values and balancing between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of carbon elimination. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more economical, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long characterized climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become unaware to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something utterly new, but as existing challenges made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with existing societal conflicts.

Forming Strategic Debates

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable 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 price signaling to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through market pressure – while the other allocates public resources that allow them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the singular emphasis on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more immediate reality: climate change is already transforming our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will triumph.