🔗 Share this article

For decades, “stopping climate change” has been the primary objective of climate governance. Across the political spectrum, from community-based climate campaigners to elite UN negotiators, lowering carbon emissions to avert future disaster has been the guiding principle of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its real-world consequences are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society addresses climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Coverage systems, residential sectors, water and spatial policies, employment sectors, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Political Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: fortifying seawalls against sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and retrofitting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the institutions that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Do we maintain disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we enact federal protections?

These questions are not theoretical. 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 endangers to trigger a widespread assurance breakdown. In 2023, UPS workers warned of a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately securing an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at record lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will establish fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a technical matter for experts and engineers rather than authentic societal debate.

Moving Beyond Specialist Models

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved ineffective, the focus transitioned to national-level industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen numerous political battles, spanning the green capitalism of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the social democracy 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 negotiating between conflicting priorities, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate shifted from the preserve of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of emissions reduction. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which connects climate to the cost-of-living crisis, arguing that rent freezes, public child services and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more budget-friendly, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to handle the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Transcending Doomsday Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we abandon the catastrophic narrative that has long prevailed climate discourse. In arguing that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome 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 existing challenges made worse: more people excluded of housing markets after disasters, more workers compelled to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a unique specialist task, then, but rather part of existing societal conflicts.

Emerging Strategic Conflicts

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to develop. One influential think tank, for example, recently suggested reforms to the property insurance market to expose 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 universal catastrophe coverage. The contrast is sharp: one approach uses cost indicators to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of managed retreat through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that enable them to remain 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 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 what ideology will prevail.