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.
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits