The science is unequivocal: unilateral decarbonization benefits both the planet and the economy, with the socio-economic cost of prevention far lower than that of cure. Yet despite this clarity, meaningful change remains elusive. In a profit-driven system, the incentive lies not in prevention but in maximizing profit—and disaster recovery, ironically, is far more profitable than averting crises. Until this foundational principle shifts, the status quo will persist, trapping societies in a cycle of environmental degradation, social inequity, and institutional weakening.

This dynamic is deeply rooted in the structure of modern economies, which prioritize short-term gains over long-term stability. Private corporations, operating within this paradigm, often implement strategies designed to maximize profits while externalizing risks. At the same time, many governments and public institutions have been systematically weakened, unable to enforce regulations or invest in long-term solutions due to political and financial constraints. These conditions have created a system that incentivizes risk and delays preventative measures, perpetuating a pattern of privatized gains and socialized losses.

Privatized gains and socialized losses

A key feature of this system is the disparity between who profits and who bears the costs of industrial activity. When disasters occur—whether environmental, economic, or social—private companies often emerge as financial winners. Consider the example of forest fires, which are increasingly frequent and severe due to climate change and poor land management. After a fire devastates an area, industries such as logging and construction move in to capitalize on the aftermath. Timber companies may extract and sell salvageable wood, while construction companies profit from rebuilding homes and infrastructure. These activities generate immediate, measurable profits for private entities.

Conversely, the losses from these disasters are borne by society at large. Forest fires destroy ecosystems, displace communities, and create long-term health impacts due to air pollution. Governments are left to fund fire suppression efforts, rebuild public infrastructure, and support affected communities, often at great expense to taxpayers. These costs, which include damage to public lands, loss of biodiversity, and increased medical expenses, are effectively socialized.

This split creates a perverse incentive: while preventative measures—such as controlled burns, improved forest management, or stricter building codes—would reduce long-term risks and costs, they offer no immediate profit for private companies. Instead, these companies benefit more from a reactive approach, profiting from reconstruction and crisis management while contributing little to the underlying resilience of society.

Weakened institutions and the growth imperative

The socialization of losses has a profound impact on public institutions and governments. By absorbing the costs of disasters, governments are increasingly burdened with deficits. This financial strain is then used by industries to argue that economic growth is necessary to pay off these deficits. In doing so, industries pressure governments into providing favorable terms such as subsidies, tax breaks, or deregulation—policies that further enable industrial growth and profit-making.

This feedback loop systematically weakens public institutions, reducing their capacity to enforce regulations or invest in long-term solutions. The more governments think they rely on industrial growth to sustain fiscal health, the more they prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term societal and ecological well-being. This cycle locks societies into a trajectory of perpetual growth, which exacerbates environmental degradation and social inequity.

For example, in regions prone to forest fires, governments may provide subsidies to timber and construction industries to stimulate economic recovery. Yet the environmental and social costs of these activities—deforestation, loss of wildlife habitat, and community displacement—are borne by the public. The industries profit, while the state is left to manage the fallout, further entrenching the dynamic of privatized gains and socialized losses.

The barrier to prevention

This structural imbalance is a significant barrier to investing in preventative measures. Prevention, while cost-effective in the long run, often requires significant upfront investment and coordination, which weakened governments and public institutions struggle to provide. Furthermore, the current system disincentivizes private companies from participating in prevention because it does not offer immediate profits.

Instead, prevention becomes a political challenge rather than an economic priority. For governments, funding prevention requires redirecting resources from other areas, often sparking political resistance or public backlash. For industries, prevention threatens to disrupt established business models and profit streams. As a result, the split between who profits and who bears the costs of disasters persists, locking societies into a reactive, rather than proactive, approach.

Enabling prevention

To break this cycle, a fundamental shift in priorities is needed. Governments must reclaim their capacity to regulate industries, enforce environmental standards, and invest in long-term solutions. This requires not only financial resources but also political will and public support. Policies that internalize the social and environmental costs of industrial activity—polluters must not pollute and polluters pay principles should be enforced. Such as banning unnecessary industries, rationing consumption, pricing carbon and biodiversity loss, and stricter regulatory frameworks—are essential to leveling the playing field.

At the same time, the profit-driven incentive structure of private industries must be reexamined. Business models that prioritize resilience, sustainability, and equity over short-term profits need to be developed and incentivized. For instance, industries based in demand side mitigation, regeneration, restoration and nature based climate adaptation measures should be rewarded, while those that perpetuate environmental degradation and social harm should be held accountable.

The science is clear: prevention is more cost-effective than cure, and unilateral decarbonization benefits both the planet and the economy. However, as long as the current system prioritizes profit over prevention, meaningful change will remain out of reach. This is the paradox of prevention. Breaking the cycle of privatized gains and socialized losses is not just an economic necessity; it is a moral imperative to create a more equitable and sustainable future.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.