🔗 Share this article

For many years, halting climate change” has been the singular aim of climate politics. Spanning the ideological range, from community-based climate campaigners to high-level UN negotiators, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the organizing logic of climate plans.

Yet climate change has come and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus only on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Coverage systems, housing, aquatic and spatial policies, employment sectors, and community businesses – all will need to be completely overhauled as we respond to a transformed and more unpredictable climate.

Natural vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, upgrading flood control systems, and modifying buildings for extreme weather events. But this structural framing avoids 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 support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we provide equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we implement 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 danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate risks to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after prolonged dry spells left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to decrease their water usage. How we answer to these societal challenges – and those to come – will encode completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for professionals and designers rather than genuine political contestation.

From Technocratic Systems

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus shifted to countrywide 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 social democracy 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 ethics and balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate moved from the realm of technocratic elites to more established fields of political struggle, it remained restricted to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the politically progressive agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the affordability emergency, arguing that lease stabilization, universal childcare and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to prevent future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we move beyond the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become blind to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something totally unprecedented, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather continuous with current ideological battles.

Forming Policy Conflicts

The battlefield of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed 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 complete governmental protection. The divergence is pronounced: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of endangered zones – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other dedicates public resources that enable them to continue living 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 exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reform our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will triumph.