🔗 Share this article

For many years, “stopping climate change” has been the singular goal of climate policy. Spanning the political spectrum, from grassroots climate campaigners to elite UN representatives, lowering carbon emissions to avoid future disaster has been the organizing logic of climate strategies.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also encompass struggles over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Insurance markets, residential sectors, hydrological and land use policies, national labor markets, and community businesses – all will need to be fundamentally transformed as we respond to a changed and growing unstable climate.

Ecological vs. Societal Impacts

To date, climate response has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: strengthening seawalls against ocean encroachment, enhancing flood control systems, and modifying buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing ignores questions about the organizations that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to operate freely, or should the federal government backstop high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that solely assist property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their companies' discretion, or do we implement 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 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 install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after years of water scarcity 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 decrease their water usage. How we respond to these political crises – and those to come – will encode fundamentally different visions of society. Yet these conflicts remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than real ideological struggle.

Moving Beyond Specialist Systems

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept increasing and those markets proved ineffectual, 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, spanning the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over state control of resources in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are struggles about ethics and mediating between competing interests, not merely pollution calculations.

Yet even as climate moved from the domain of technocratic elites to more established fields 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 rent freezes, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more economical, but high-consumption, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same ideological creativity to adaptation – changing social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to handle 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 characterized 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 manifest not as something totally unprecedented, but as known issues made worse: more people excluded 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 connected to ongoing political struggles.

Emerging Policy Conflicts

The terrain 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 danger zones like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide comprehensive public disaster insurance. The contrast is pronounced: 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 commits public resources that enable 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 neglected. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe hides a more immediate reality: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will succeed.