🔗 Share this article

For a long time, “stopping climate change” has been the central aim of climate politics. Spanning the political spectrum, from community-based climate activists to high-level UN representatives, curtailing carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Insurance markets, housing, aquatic and spatial policies, employment sectors, and regional commerce – all will need to be completely overhauled as we adjust to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Political Effects

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this infrastructure-centric framing avoids questions about the organizations that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the central administration support high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we ensure equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers toiling 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 increase 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 winning an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for specialists and technicians rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. 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 genuinely political. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, spanning the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about principles and balancing between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate migrated from the preserve of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of decarbonization. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that rent freezes, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Transcending Catastrophic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more apparent once we move beyond the catastrophic narrative that has long dominated climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely destroy human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as known issues made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled 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 ongoing political struggles.

Forming Policy Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently recommended reforms to the property insurance market to expose homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in vulnerable regions 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 cost indicators to encourage 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 continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be discarded. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe masks 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 whose vision will prevail.