🔗 Share this article

For decades, “stopping climate change” has been the primary goal of climate governance. Across the ideological range, from grassroots climate advocates to elite UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to avoid future crisis has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has materialized and its real-world consequences are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also embrace debates over how society handles climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Risk pools, residential sectors, aquatic and spatial policies, employment sectors, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we adapt to a altered and more unpredictable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Consequences

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against sea level rise, upgrading flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the organizations that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the national authorities backstop high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. In the United States alone, a surge in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a national insurance crisis. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought 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 decrease their water usage. How we answer to these societal challenges – and those to come – will establish completely opposing visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Technocratic Frameworks

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to countrywide 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 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 ethics and mediating between opposing agendas, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate shifted from the realm of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the economic pressure, arguing that housing cost controls, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from relocating for more affordable, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Beyond Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something totally unprecedented, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced 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 current ideological battles.

Forming Policy Debates

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to subject 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 complete governmental protection. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses price signaling to prod people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – while the other commits public resources that allow them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain infrequent in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: 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 prevail.