Geoclimatic Threats of the 21^st Century: An Economic Assessment of Global and Russian Risks

The article examines geoclimatic problems as a complex challenge to the modern world community, which has a significant impact on the economic development of states. The purpose of the work is to analyze key geoclimatic risks, assess their potential economic damage for a number of leading countries (Russia, USA, China) and identify the specifics of climate threats in different regions. The study presents a multidimensional classification of geoclimatic problems (based on the approaches of the Bank of Russia and S.B. Kuzmin); the main types of risks are considered: physical and transitional climatic, geophysical, geological, meteorological, agrometeorological, hydrological, etc.; the most acute geoclimatic challenges for the world community (global warming, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, forest fires, desertification) are analyzed; priority risks for Russia (melting permafrost, forest fires, droughts, floods, heat stress in cities, vulnerability of infrastructure); A cross-country comparison of the scale of threats and potential damage was carried out using a tabular model. The methodology includes comparative analysis, systematization of data from international organizations (WMO, IPCC, UNEP), statistics of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Russian Federation and scientific research. Main conclusions: geoclimatic problems are becoming systemic and forming a new «climate economy», where adaptation measures become a condition for sustainable development; no state is able to face modern climate challenges alone — international cooperation is required. For Russia, the risks associated with cryolithozone degradation, forest fires, and water stress in agricultural regions are of particular importance; a comparison of the three countries shows that the greatest potential damage from meteorological emergencies is in the United States, from seismic threats in China, and Russia is characterized by local but critical risks in certain regions. The practical significance of the work lies in the possibility of using the results obtained to develop national strategies for adaptation to climate change and improve environmental risk management mechanisms.

1. Kuzmin S.B. Dangerous natural processes — a global threat of modernity. The age of globalization. 2021;(2):17–29. URL: https://elibrary.ru/oxfcvk (In Russ.).

2. Lyubchik V.N. Features of the climatic treatment of the summer season in Yevpatoria in modern climatic conditions. Bulletin of Physiotherapy and Balneology. 2024;30(2):10-15. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.37279/2413-0478-2024-30-2-10-15

3. Damm A., Köberl J., Prettenthaler F., Rogler N., Töglhofer C. Impacts of +2°C global warming on electricity demand in Europe. Climate Services. 2017;7:12-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.cliser.2016.07.001

4. Cortés Arbués I., Chatzivasileiadis T., Iglesias G., Mysiak J. Distribution of economic damages due to climate-driven sea-level rise across European regions and sectors. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):126. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-48136-y

5. Byrne B., Liu J., Lee C., Yin Y., Bowman K.W., Fisher J.B., et al. Carbon emissions from the 2023 Canadian wildfires. Nature. 2024;633(8031):835-839. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07878-z

6. Ledeneva V. Yu., Lukyanets A.S. The role of financing in managing climate migration and preventing climate displacement. Scientific review. Series 1. Economics and law. 2022;10:5–19. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26653/2076-4650-2022-5-6-01

7. Melnikov V.P., Brushkov A.V., Dubrovin V.A. and others. Assessment of damage to residential and industrial buildings and structures caused by temperature changes and thawing of permafrost in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation by the middle of the 21st century. Geoecology. Engineering geology, hydrogeology, geocryology. 2021;(1):14-31. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S0869780921010070

8. Latysheva I.V., Vologzhina S. Zh., Loshchenko K.A. Circulation factors of forest fires in Siberia and the Far East in the summer of 2019 and 2021. Izvestiya Irkutsk State University. Series: Earth Sciences. 2021;38:54-70. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26516/2073-3402.2021.38.54

9. Sharko E.R. The impact of climate change on agriculture in the regions of the Russian Federation. Theoretical and applied economics. 2022;(1):11-24. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.25136/2409-8647.2022.1.35866

10. Petrashen A.S., Abbasov P.A. Flooding on the Amur River in 2013 and the amount of precipitation. Mining Information and Analytical Bulletin (scientific and technical journal). 2014;(S4-9):99-106. URL: https://elibrary.ru/tzlvnf (In Russ.).

11. Revich B.A. Climate change and forest fires as health risk factors (analytical review). Health risk analysis. 2024;(3):132-145. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2024.3.14

12. Malovichko A.A., Kolomiets M.V., Ruzaykin A.I. Seismological monitoring of Russia in 2022. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 4. Geology. 2023;(5):40-45. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.55959/MSU0579-9406-4-2023-63-5-40-45

13. Ulomov V.I. Seismic hazard and the “syndrome” of earthquakes. Disaster medicine. Protection. 1996;1(13):72-80. URL: http://seismos-u.ifz.ru/p/Sindrom2.pdf (In Russ.).

14. Oluwafemi J.O., Adedokun S.A., Ofuyatan O.M., Abiola O.S., Agbede O.A. Review of world earthquakes. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology. 2018;9(9):440–464. URL: https://iaeme.com/Home/article_id/IJCIET_09_09_046.

15. Barishpolets V.A. System analysis of disasters occurring in the world. Radio electronics. Nanosystems. Information technology. 2010;2(1-2):162-176. URL: https://elibrary.ru/mjfibs (In Russ.).

16. Smirnov V.I. Seismic insulation — modern antiseismic protection of buildings in Russia. Earthquake-resistant construction. Safety of structures. 2013;(4):41-54. URL: https://elibrary.ru/rarptb (In Russ.).

17. Zozulya P.V., Zozulya A.V. Modern assessment of the danger and risks of natural disasters. Bulletin of the University. 2015;(5):63–68. URL: https://elibrary.ru/scoyuq (In Russ.).

18. Mirus B.B., Jones E.S., Baum R.L., Godt J.W., Slaughter S., Crawford M.M., Lancaster J., Stanley T., Kirschbaum D.B., Burns W.J., Schmitt R.G., Lindsey K.O., McCoy K.M. Landslides across the USA: occurrence, susceptibility, and data limitations. Landslides. 2020;17(10):2271–2285. DOI:10.1007/s10346-020-01424-4

19. Wang Q., Zhao K., Chen L., Wu D., Wang Y., Zhang F. Observational fine-scale evolutionary characteristics of concentric eyewall Typhoon Doksuri (2023). Atmospheric Research. 2024;310:107630. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2024.107630

20. Wang X., Zhao C, Guo N, Li Y, Li Y. Drought disasters in China from 1991 to 2018: Analysis of spatiotemporal trends and characteristics. Remote Sensing. 2023;15(6):1708. DOI: 10.3390/rs15061708

21. Akhtyamov R.G. Assessment of geospatial features of climate change on the example of BRICS countries. Bulletin of scientific research results. 2023;(2):18–27. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.20295/2223-9987-2023-2-18-27

22. Wood N., Jones J., Peters J., Richards K. National population exposure and evacuation potential in the United States to earthquake-generated tsunami threats. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2025:105511. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105511

23. Krupko A.E., Nesterov Yu.A. Forest management in the post-Soviet period and the problems of achieving a sustainable state of forests in Russia. Proceedings of the Dagestan State Pedagogical University. Natural and exact sciences. 2023;17(2):57-67. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31161/1995-0675-2023-17-2-57-67