🔗 Share this article

For decades, halting climate change” has been the primary aim of climate policy. Across the political spectrum, from grassroots climate activists to high-level UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has arrived and its tangible effects are already being felt. This means that climate politics can no longer focus solely on averting future catastrophes. It must now also encompass debates over how society addresses climate impacts already reshaping economic and social life. Coverage systems, housing, water and land use policies, workforce systems, and local economies – all will need to be fundamentally transformed 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 sea level rise, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for severe climate incidents. But this engineering-focused framing sidesteps questions about the systems that will condition how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Should we allow property insurance markets to act independently, or should the federal government backstop high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Is it fair to expose workers toiling in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we enact 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 endangers to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers proposed 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 historic 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 react to these societal challenges – and those to come – will embed radically distinct visions of society. Yet these battles remain largely outside the scope of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for experts and engineers rather than genuine political contestation.

Transitioning From Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already evolved past technocratic frameworks when it comes to emissions reduction. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that market mechanisms would solve climate change. But as emissions kept growing and those markets proved unsuccessful, the focus moved to federal industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became authentically contested. Recent years have seen countless 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 state control of resources in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are fights about principles and balancing between conflicting priorities, not merely emissions math.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained restricted 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 housing cost controls, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more affordable, but energy-intensive, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an carbon cutting perspective. A fully inclusive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – reforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to manage the climate impacts already changing everyday life.

Moving Past Doomsday Framing

The need for this shift becomes more evident once we reject the doomsday perspective that has long characterized climate discourse. In insisting that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will appear not as something completely novel, but as familiar problems made worse: more people forced 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 distinct technical challenge, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Emerging Policy Battles

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to emerge. 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 comprehensive public disaster insurance. The difference is stark: one approach uses economic incentives to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of organized relocation through economic forces – while the other allocates public resources that allow them to stay in place 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 sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more current situation: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will reshape our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and which perspective will triumph.