As a person living in Russia, I always had mixed feelings when hearing appeals to fight global warming. On the one hand, I completely understand that it is going to be a disaster for lots of people. On the other hand (a more egoistic one), it seems like it would be good for my country if the temperature would rise by a few degrees. The average temperature will become more comfortable for living in most Russian cities and Siberia may become more habitable. However, I might be overlooking some effects like coastal area flooding, damage to infrastructure or changes in flora or fauna.

This makes me wonder, who might actually win from the global warming? Is it just all cold countries (Russia, Canada, Scandinavian states, Iceland, etc.), or only part of them, or maybe everyone will lose?

  • $\begingroup$ People in the Pacific Northwest who like ctirus fruits, maybe? Oranges locally grown at Puget Sound! $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2021 at 0:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Advantages of a dying biosphere ? $\endgroup$
    – user22279
    Apr 19, 2021 at 8:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the African Horn, climate change is a massive disaster. But I'm benefiting from climate change (Personal view), without it, I will not have a job :) $\endgroup$
    – ahmathelte
    Apr 19, 2021 at 8:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Am not totally sure, but I don't think there's a geosciency answer to the question that wouldn't drift into speculation, economy, politics and all that ... $\endgroup$
    – user22279
    Apr 19, 2021 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ Speculation: Companies who are involved in the transport of water, building flood protection facilities and production of weapons are probable winners. To mention some. Right wing politician might also take advantage of it. $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2021 at 10:47

4 Answers 4


Global economic costs of natural disasters:

In the period 1998-2017, disaster-hit countries reported direct economic losses of 2,908 billion dolars of which climate-related disasters accounted for 2,245 billion dolars or 77% of the total.

This compares with total reported losses for the period 1978-1997 of 1,313 billion dolars of which climate-related disasters accounted for 895 billion dolars or 68%.

Source: undrr.org

The economic figures are frightening and climate change has been shown to increase these events all over the world. It is difficult to claim for specific countries winning anything at all with global warming after this introduction.

Your assumption "...Siberia may become more habitable." is proven false. Science find more extrem winters in East Asia and Europe after CC, even the average temperature raises and winters become shorter (emphasis mine):

Our simulations with the ECHAM5 general circulation model demonstrate that lower‐troposphere heating over the B‐K seas in the Eastern Arctic caused by the sea ice reduction may result in strong anticyclonic anomaly over the Polar Ocean and anomalous easterly advection over northern continents. This causes a continental‐scale winter cooling reaching −1.5°C, with more than 3 times increased probability of cold winter extremes over large areas including Europe. Our results imply that several recent severe winters do not conflict the global warming picture but rather supplement it.

Source: A link between reduced Barents‐Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents", Climate and Dynamics, cited in Expect more extreme winters thanks to Global Warming, say scientists, Independent.

It could be debated the global beneficts of the opening of sea routes if the Arctic melts, but the costs all over the globe would exced the beneficts if we arrive to that scenario (economic looses due to floods in coastal cities among others).

At a regional and local scale some industries may benefict from CC:

  • Places where summer heat atract new tourists.
  • New agricultural products adapted to heat.
  • ....

But the costs for the region again far outweigh the benefits.

In the first case the region will encounter problems as desertification, availability of water, biodiversity loss, ....

The second case imply the ruling agriculturists loose their crops; as an example imagine what Bordeaux can win planting oranges instead of his known red wine despite some opportunistic individual may do fortune with it (...).


Parts of Russia might win, but other parts will lose.

If you accept what is presented in this news item, parts of Siberia are already experiencing global warming, with permafrost no longer existent in parts of Yakutia, particularly near Chersky, 130 km south of Russia's Arctic coast.

With the loss of permafrost soil develops voids and collapses, with disastrous results for buildings and other infrastructure (pipelines and roads, airports, etc.). According to scientists, the loss of permafrost, due to global warming, "could cost Russia 7 trillion roubles (98.2 billion USD) in damage by 2050 if the rate of warming continues".


I think that global warming will have no winners. The climate has already changed, and we can see the consequences. There are a lot of people who still deny that fact, but it happens. Some countries suffer from droughts, fires, and floods. From one side, it may be because of the geographical location, but it happens so often lately, and it's so widespread, so it's not only location.

The rise of temperature will be different in parts of the planet; some people will feel it more, some less. The same with temperature impact on flora, fauna, etc.

I don't want to write a lot, but we have to remember that we live on one planet. Everything is connected, even if it's not obvious. Global warming may affect one part of the world, a few countries, but those countries are connected to another. And these another to another.

Yesterday I finished a small paper on that theme and did a research. I read different information, research, articles, and paper examples on https://paperap.com/free-papers/global-warming/, and all that info I found proved to me once again that global warming is a danger. And people may think differently, but I'm writing what I think about all that.

No one will win, it's a fact.

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, we are highly dependent on international trade; very few nations (maybe none now) can sustain an advanced industrialised economy without it. The problems in one part of the world don't stay confined there - eg current global energy crisis. And if the "best" place to be in a globally warmed world becomes the favored destination for tens of millions of climate refugees? Sustaining good governance - or introducing it - may be more important than any direct climate impacts. $\endgroup$
    – Ken Fabian
    Sep 16 at 23:00

Dictators and military companies would have a bonanza because today, climate and social instability is exploited to fund billion dollar military campaigns... If rivers dry out even more, the migrations, resource battles, popular discontent, will mean more wars.

Farmers in some regions will have better crops from more CO2 and warmth, i.e. some Russia regions.

Green energy companies... solar/wind/eco companies will become popular if the rivers have fish floating in them from hot water, and the trees go yellow in july, like it happened everywhere in France in 2022.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.