- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?

Do you know the economic consequences of climate change?
Brace yourself for increased costs of adaptation and mitigation, damage to infrastructure, decreased agricultural productivity, loss of tourism revenue, and insurance losses.
Climate change is taking a toll on our economy.
Find out more about how these consequences are impacting us in this article.
Key Takeaways
- Significant financial investment is required for adaptation and mitigation measures, such as building sea walls and developing renewable energy sources, to protect against and minimize the impacts of climate change.
- Rising temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events drive up costs of adaptation and mitigation efforts, leading to costly repairs and disruptions in daily life due to infrastructure damage.
- Changing weather patterns and increased frequency of extreme events negatively impact agricultural productivity, resulting in decreased crop yields, livestock health issues, and difficulties in planning and managing farming operations effectively.
- Changes in weather patterns and climate-related hazards disrupt tourist activities and infrastructure, leading to a decline in tourism revenue and impacting local economies.
Increased Costs of Adaptation and Mitigation
How much will you have to spend to adapt to and mitigate the consequences of climate change?
The increased costs of adaptation and mitigation can be significant. As temperatures rise and extreme weather events become more frequent, governments, businesses, and individuals will need to invest in infrastructure, technology, and strategies to protect against and minimize the impacts of climate change.

For example, building sea walls, improving water management systems, and developing renewable energy sources are all measures that require substantial financial resources. Additionally, the costs of transitioning to a low-carbon economy, such as implementing carbon pricing and investing in clean energy technologies, can also be substantial.
Damage to Infrastructure
You will experience significant damage to your infrastructure due to climate change. Rising temperatures and extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires pose a significant threat to the stability and functionality of your roads, bridges, buildings, and other essential structures.
As temperatures continue to rise, heatwaves can cause roads to buckle and crack, while increased precipitation can lead to flooding and erosion, weakening foundations and causing structural damage. Additionally, stronger storms and hurricanes can result in the destruction of buildings and infrastructure, leading to costly repairs and disruptions in daily life.
These damages not only impact your ability to function effectively as a society but also result in significant economic losses. As we explore the consequences of climate change further, it’s important to consider how decreased agricultural productivity is another significant concern.
Decreased Agricultural Productivity
One consequence of climate change is that agricultural productivity decreases as a result of changing weather patterns and increased frequency of extreme events.
As a farmer, you face the challenge of adapting to these uncertain conditions. Rising temperatures can negatively impact crop yields and livestock health.
Droughts and floods become more frequent, affecting irrigation and soil quality. Pests and diseases thrive in warmer climates, posing a threat to your crops and livestock.

Additionally, unpredictable weather patterns make it difficult to plan and manage your farming operations effectively. These changes in agricultural productivity not only affect your livelihood but also have broader economic implications.
Food scarcity can lead to higher prices and increased social inequality. Governments and international organizations must take steps to mitigate these effects and support farmers in adapting to the changing climate.
Loss of Tourism Revenue
As a farmer dealing with the consequences of climate change, you also need to consider the potential loss of tourism revenue due to its impact on your local economy.
Climate change can lead to changes in weather patterns, such as increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods, and droughts. These events can disrupt tourist activities and infrastructure, leading to a decline in tourism revenue.
For example, if your region is known for its scenic landscapes and outdoor recreational activities, such as hiking and camping, extreme weather events can damage these attractions and deter tourists from visiting.
Additionally, rising sea levels and warmer temperatures can negatively impact coastal tourism, as beach erosion and coral bleaching can diminish the appeal of beach destinations.
Therefore, it’s crucial to recognize the potential economic consequences of climate change on tourism and work towards sustainable solutions to mitigate its impact.

Insurance Losses
What are the potential insurance losses resulting from the economic consequences of climate change?
As the impacts of climate change continue to intensify, insurance losses have become a major concern for both individuals and businesses. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other climate-related hazards have led to an increase in property damage, crop failure, and infrastructure destruction. This, in turn, has resulted in a significant rise in insurance claims and payouts.
Insurers are facing mounting financial pressure as they try to cover the costs of these losses. Additionally, the frequency and severity of climate-related disasters make it challenging for insurance companies to accurately assess and price their policies.
As a result, individuals and businesses may face higher premiums or even difficulty obtaining insurance coverage altogether, further exacerbating the economic consequences of climate change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the economic consequences of climate change are significant and far-reaching. The increased costs of adaptation and mitigation, damage to infrastructure, decreased agricultural productivity, loss of tourism revenue, and insurance losses all contribute to a negative impact on the economy.
Urgent action is needed to address climate change and mitigate its effects in order to protect our economy and future generations.
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.
- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
What timeline options were delegates debating?
Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).
Countries failed to reach a resolution on the scheduling of the influential reports at five consecutive IPCC meetings since 2024 – despite drafting being well underway.
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s write-up of discussions in Istanbul, Sofia, Hangzhou, Lima and Bangkok.)
Reporting from the ENB f


