For a family in, the difference between renovating the house or abandoning it is measured in months of waiting. Until the public money arrives, if it arrives, the water has dried up, the mold has taken over and the debt has grown. The climate debate talks about billions announced at conferences, but little about how long this resource will become a mattress, refrigerator, or roof. This is where the gap comes in.
When a flood destroys a house or a drought destroys crops, payment is automatic, based on meteorological and georeferenced data. No long projects, reports in English and multiple approvals. The system uses instant payments infrastructure like o and reduces transaction costs to almost zero. Today, a significant part of climate money is lost in administration, consultancy and auditing.
Losses fall on the poorest, who spend more on energy and food and have less capacity to protect themselves. Direct transfers calibrated by climate data act as public insurance, reducing inequality and strengthening recovery. Experiences in low-income countries show that payments based on climate and satellite series are accurate enough to limit fraud.
There are organized interests in the current model: governments that prefer discretionary control, consultancy chains that make a living from formulating projects, structures that benefit from complexity. The question is not to ignore them, but to understand how to redirect this expertise, currently focused on bureaucracy, towards functions such as monitoring and local support.
On the other side, there is a possible coalition, after all, city halls demand quick responses to reduce political pressure. Technology companies, on the other hand, see a reputational impact at a low cost and those affected by the climate want to be served quickly. Thus, where motivations differ, objectives can converge, ensuring that the money reaches those who lost everything in a timely manner.
We need, of course, to always try to anticipate objections. The first is moral hazard, the idea that if a person knows they will receive help, they would have less incentive to protect themselves. But individual prevention capacity in the face of historic floods or severe droughts is minimal. The Climate Pix would function as a safety net against systemic shocks that exceed any self-protection capacity.
The second criticism involves data accuracy and risk of fraud, especially considering incomplete and outdated registrations. A system that crosses climate data, location and social records produces an auditable digital trail and can even lead to the improvement of the records themselves by creating an incentive to keep them updated.
Pix do Clima does not replace long-term funds or adaptation infrastructure, it seeks to deliver direct and rapid compensation. The discussion needs to go beyond the announced volume and consider how, in how long and to whom the money reaches. After all, the climate agenda requires a portfolio that combines long-term instruments with a response to immediate damage.
Placing resources in the hands of those who lost their homes or farms does not create permanent victims, but it can create agents for their own reconstruction. As long as we remain distant from those who already feel floods, droughts and extreme heat, the political and social account will remain open, regardless of the billions announced at each COP.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
