As with any profound disruption of society, such as war or hyperinflation, the changes brought about by our exploitation of fossil fuels will produce winners and losers. A session on climate extremes and their impacts, organized by Nature at the EuroScience Open Forum in Stockholm last week (see Nature 430, 277; 200410.1038/430277b), discussed who will, and who should, pay for damage caused by global warming.

There are two basic strategies for dealing with global warming: climate-change mitigation, and adaptation to the changing conditions. For the next few decades, we will have no choice but to adapt. According to the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will rise until 2030 whether future emissions are curbed or not; the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted will dominate our medium-term future. But mitigation now can make a significant difference to the adaptation costs that will face our grandchildren.

So who benefits and who will have to pay? The question must be considered for each of the various effects of climate change. Take, for example, an increase in intense precipitation events, which is likely to occur in many areas over the next century, according to the IPCC assessment. Assuming that the main damage of intense rains lies in the flooding of land, those who live in a floodplain are most likely to lose money — in many European countries, flood damage is not insured. In most rich nations, people can choose between the pleasures of the riverside and the safety of a hill-top, so one might argue that floodplain dwellers have only themselves to blame. But a country such as the Netherlands does not offer many flood-proof building sites and, outside affluent societies, individual choices are limited.

There are winners too, including the builders who repair the damage and oil companies that benefit indirectly through the unrestricted sale of fossil fuels. But anyone who uses energy from fossil fuels at a price that does not account for climate-related costs of greenhouse-gas emissions is also ‘winning’ at someone else's expense. Winners and losers may be the same people, but usually they are not.

Inevitably, it is up to policy-makers to ensure that the costs of mitigation and adaptation are at least partly borne by those to whom climate change is attributable. Whatever the future of international treaties, lawyers and climatologists have interesting times ahead.