TCFD Releases Final Recommendations

Conceptual map of climate-related risks, opportunities, and financial impacts, from the final TCFD recommendations report

The Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) released their final recommendations in late June. The changes to the recommendations reflect the extensive feedback the Taskforce received from the stakeholder engagement process in the past six months. Some key changes include:

  • Simplifying the recommended disclosure related to Strategy and scenarios to focus on the resiliency of an organization’s strategy to climate risk and opportunities
  • Establishing a threshold for organizations that should consider conducting more robust scenario analysis to assess the resilience of their strategies.
  • Clarifying that the recommended disclosures related to the strategy and metrics and targets recommendations depend on an assessment of materiality, whereas disclosures on governance and risk management are relevant for all organizations.
  • Updated conceptual map of climate-related risks and opportunities and associated financial impacts.

TCFD Recommendations at G20

The recommendations were presented at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, with hopes that the world leaders would formally endorse the guidelines. Climate change was high on the agenda for the summit, where all but the United States voiced a strong recommitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement, and the G20 included by reference, the TCFD recommendations in their Climate and Energy Action Plan for Growth.

CEOs Endorse the Recommendations

The TCFD final recommendations were endorsed by over 100 CEO’s from a wide range of companies, including large financial institutions like Barclays and Morgan Stanley as well as energy and manufacturing companies like Suez, DuPont, and Unilever. Reactions from a broad range of financial analysts were also positive, noting the need for improvements and wider adoption of climate risk disclosure practices.

A number of initiatives are already under way to think through and plan the implementation of the TCFD recommendations, such as the UNEP FI’s effort with major banks from around the world who have pledged to work towards adopting these recommendations, and put forth actions they see as needed for broader adoption of climate risk reporting.

Further Readings

  • The Economist Intelligence Unit’s  “The Road to Action” report finds that investors, asset managers, and banks are in urgent need of a way to identify and measure how the industry is responding to climate-related risks. It notes that their interviewees widely regard the TCFD’s recommendations as having the clearest mandate to providing possible solutions.
  • Aon’s white paper Financial Regulators Awaken: Prepare to Disclose Climate Risk notes that risk management and analytics is what differentiates the TCFD’s recommendations from many existing standards. “Risk management, including insurance and risk analytics, is given a key role in helping businesses understand and quantify climate risks. The recommendations provide a framework that can enhance risk management, empower corporate strategy, and improve resilience in a fast-changing world.”
  • The 2-Degree Investing Initiative takes a deep dive into corporate disclosures in its forthcoming report “Limited Visibility”, part of their Tragedy of the Horizon program. The report presents the current state of corporate disclosure on long-term risks and long-term forward looking data using analysis of MSCI World companies’ financial disclosures.

Four Twenty Seven helps investors, Fortune 500 companies, and government institutions understand how to quantify and monetize climate change impacts on operations and asset portfolios. Our clients rely on Four Twenty Seven’s tools and models to factor into financial and operational planning processes. Learn more about how we are helping our clients assess and adapt to climate risks.

Trump and Paris: What Impact on Climate?

(U.S. Air National Guard Photo by Master Sgt. Culeen Shaffer/Released)

President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement triggered a strong response from the international community, and many foreign leaders quickly denounced the decision and vowed to maintain or increase their nations’ efforts. China and the European Union have announced a new alliance to lead on climate issues. In addition, U.S. states are forming alliances with other nations, with California Governor Jerry Brown traveling to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping and sign climate partnerships with local Chinese leaders. Governor Brown also participated in an event for the Under 2 Coalition, a group of subnational actors in 33 countries committed to reducing carbon emissions, which he led California to establish in 2015. Yet the loss of U.S. federal leadership is still daunting. Other world players are looking to fill this leadership gap, including new French President Emmanuel Macron who has invited American climate scientists to continue their work in France.

Impacts on U.S. Emissions

U.S. leaders in the private sector and in state and local government are pressing forward. As David Victor notes for the Brookings Institution, the loss of U.S. federal leadership makes the path to achieving the Paris Agreement’s goals harder to achieve, but not impossible. Rhodium Group’s modeling showing the annual emissions projections,  shows that the systematic dismantlement of climate policy by the Trump Administration makes it impossible for the US to attain its 26-28% emissions reduction target. However, uncertainty from a range of other factors, including energy markets dynamics (oil and gas prices in particular) and the health of the economy could drive large variations in emission trajectory, compounding the policy uncertainty around the fate of climate policy and programs targeted by Republicans.

Rhodium Group projections of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions

Even before the Paris Agreement announcement, the administration had worked to impede the nation’s effectiveness on climate issues. Among many other programs in the line of fire, the ability to monitor carbon emissions, with budget cuts proposed to severely limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and eliminate the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s Global Carbon Monitoring program. The loss of these tools would critically undermine the U.S.’ ability to implement and enforce emissions regulations.

Impacts on Adaptation and Resilience Funding, Domestically and Internationally

As part of the withdrawal, Trump announced that the U.S. would end its payments to the Green Climate Fund, falsely claiming that “nobody even knows” where the funding for developing nations is ending up. Yet the fund, which aims to support equally climate mitigation and adaptation projects, fully details 43 projects currently funded from the $10+ billion pledged. By ending its payments, the U.S. cuts $2 billion in expected funding, a serious blow to the fund. It is yet to be seen if other nations will increase their pledges to fill this gap. Trump’s proposed budget will cut grants and funds for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and close to 50% of the EPA’s scientific research programs budget. The proposal belies previous administration claims that their EPA plans would return environmental responsibilities to states, as the budget reduces “state grants for air and water programs by 30 percent.” Other budget cuts may target innovation and fundamental research with cuts for ARPA-E and the Department of Energy.

New U.S. Coalitions Form to Support Paris Agreement 

Though funding to climate programs are at risk, leaders of U.S. cities and states are forming alliances to voice their commitment to achieving the nations’ contributions even without federal government support. The U.S. Climate Alliance, which was formed by the state governors of Washington, New York, and California, is comprised of 13 states and territories make up the alliance representing 35.9% of the country’s population.

The We Are Still In movement, which is led by Michael Bloomberg, seeks to allow subnational entities formally to submit reports on progress to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, raising questions of whether and how the Framework should allow subnational actors to participate. More than 1200 mayors, governors, college and university leaders, businesses, and investors have pledged to continue to support climate action to meet the Paris Agreement through the We Are Still In; Four Twenty Seven is proud to join these efforts as a signatory.

The effect of these new coalitions is yet to be seen, but the signal they send to other nations and advocates around the world is critical to cushion the blow from the withdrawal of the world’s second largest emitter from the Paris Agreement. The rest of the world has sent a clear signal that they remained committed to fighting climate change, with European leaders, Indian Prime Minister Modi, and Chinese Premier Xi in particular reiterating their commitment in the days that followed the announcement by Donald Trump.

What Now?

The Trump administration has brought new levels of uncertainty to climate policy in the U.S., but efforts to tear down regulatory programs are more likely to create continued confusion and delays than to deal a final blow to efforts to reduce emissions. The greatest uncertainty, however, comes from the broader policy and political context, the ability of the administration to carry out its agenda, and the impact of its proposed policy on the economy.

Meanwhile, many cities and corporations are galvanized. Their efforts to compensate the policy shifts at the federal level will not be enough to make up for the lost budget and policy ambition, but it will ensure the U.S. does not trail too far off its international commitment and keeps an informal but critical presence on the global stage.

Audio Blog: Latest Innovations in ESG Investing

Colin Shaw at Sustainatopia discussing ESG investing
From left to right: Colin Shaw, Jason Escamilla, Catharine Banat, Megan Fielding, and Andrew Olig

Four Twenty Seven’s Director of Finance, Colin Shaw, was recently invited to be a part of a panel titled “Latest Innovations in ESG” at Sustainatopia on May 8th, 2017.

The panelists discussed the increasing awareness of investors in their options to invest responsibly, and breaking down the preconception that ESG investing sacrifices financial returns. Colin presented on the tools to used measure climate risk in financial portfolios, and the need that Four Twenty Seven sees for more climate data in order to better provide guidance to businesses for their risk management and adaptation planning. The other panelists included:

  • Andrew Olig, Regional Vice President of Calvert Mutual Funds
  • Megan Fielding, Senior Director, Responsible Investment at TIAA Investments
  • Catherine Banat, Impact Investing at RBC Global Asset Management
  • Jason Escamilla, CEO of Impact Labs

Listen to the entire engaging panel recording below.

Developing Climate-Competent Boards: Climate Risk and Opportunities

Four Twenty Seven’s founder and CEO Emilie Mazzacurati was invited to speak during the Investing in the Age of Climate Change symposium on April 28, 2017, at the University of Oregon. Emilie presented through a video call and talked about Four Twenty Seven’s work, but mainly discussed climate-competent boards. She delved into what a climate-competent board is, the opportunities they provide, and steps to implement climate-competency on a board. She also discussed economic impacts from climate change, the TCFD climate risk disclosure recommendations, the Paris Agreement, and how these topics relate to climate-competent boards.

Investing in the Age of Climate Change was sponsored by the University of Oregon’s Office of the President and the Office of Sustainability. The symposium tackled issues around climate risk, their connection to investment decisions, and the need to understand how these risks can affect an organization’s business in the long-term.

Video: Emilie Mazzacurati speaking at Investing in the Age of Climate Change

Proadapt Symposium on Climate Risk and Investment

On April 20, 2017, Proadapt hosted the symposium “Climate Risk and Investment: Framing Private Challenges and Opportunities” a conference to discuss common challenges and emerging investment opportunities in climate resilience. Emilie Mazzacurati, Four Twenty Seven founder and CEO, joined the symposium to discuss what climate change means for the financial sector, and innovative ways that funding for climate-resilient projects can be achieved.

Emilie first spoke on the second panel of the event, “Climate Resilience and Emerging Tools for Financial Institutions”, highlighting the recent moves by financial regulatory groups and institutional investors to promote climate risk analysis and disclosure, as well as ways to overcome the challenges of translating climate data into business intelligence.

Joining Emilie on the panel was Wagner de Siqueira Pinto, executive manager of the Strategy and Organization Directorate of Banco do Brasil; Jerri Ribeiro, leader of PwC Brazil´s Risk Consulting practice; and Jennifer Burney, Assistant Professor at the University of California San Diego.

Later in the day, Emilie moderated a panel on “The Role of Blended Finance in Promoting Climate Resilience”, a lively discussion on methods to create new funding mechanisms to leverage public and philanthopic funding in order to raise private capital for environmentally-beneficial projects.

Speaking on the panel was Stacy A. Swann, CEO and Partner, Climate Finance Advisors; Joan Larrea, CEO of Convergence; Virginie Fayolle, Senior Consultant and the Climate Finance Lead, Acclimatise; and Stephen A. Morel, Global Energy Contractor, (OPIC).

Emilie capped the day at Proadapt by providing a few key thoughts on how she and Four Twenty Seven see the demand for climate resilience work in the future, including how companies are looking to see how climate data can be used to identify new opportunities as markets change.

In The Arena – Finding Climate Solutions

In the Arena is a broadcast and online series that interviews alumni of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley who have embraced careers in policy innovation and social entrepreneurship. Four Twenty Seven Founder and CEO Emilie Mazzacurati, an alumna of the school (MPP ’07), talked with host and fellow alumnus Jonathan Stein (MPP/JD ’13) about how Four Twenty Seven fulfills its mission to build climate resilience through social innovation by working closely with corporations and investors on climate risk and adaptation. Watch Emilie and Jonathan discuss climate data, social innovation and integrating climate risk to protect local communities on In The Arena — Finding Climate Solutions:

Why BlackRock is Worried About Climate Change

This article was first published on the Huffington Post.

Why BlackRock is Worried About Climate Change

Climate Change: A Material Risk for Investors

While the Trump administration is trying to roll back climate policy in the U.S., concerns over climate change are mounting on financial markets. In September 2016, the largest asset management firm in the world, BlackRock, with $5 trillion under management, released a report where it stated climate change is a material risk and “climate-proofing portfolios is a key consideration for all asset owners.” A few weeks back, BlackRock doubled down in announcing that it expected companies in its portfolio to disclose their exposure to climate risk. BlackRock is not the only investor that has publicly voiced concern over climate risk in its portfolio.

State Street Corp, which manages $2.5 trillion worth of assets, sent a letter in January to the boards of corporations it invests in, asking the companies to disclose their plans to account for climate change and other social issues. Over the long-term, these issues can have a material impact on a company’s ability to generate returns,” State Street said in the letter. “Corporate scandals of the last few years around automotive emissions, food safety or labor issues have emphasized the need for companies to assess the impact of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) risks.”

The call for disclosures is rising from individual fund managers as well. Canadian pension manager OPTrust released details of its approach to climate considerations when investing, and asking for more standardized measures for disclosing these risks.

Why are investors concerned over climate risk, and how do they expect these risks to materialize in their portfolios?

Economic and Financial Impacts from Climate Change

Climate change is expected to have impacts on the natural environment, but also on human systems and global and local economies. From decreased crop yields to physical impacts on built infrastructure and labor productivity, impacts are predicted to be uneven but ubiquitous. Business leaders are well aware of this risk, and over the past years, failure to adapt to climate change has consistently been listed among the top five risks for economies in impact and likelihood in the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report.

These impacts on the economy at large, on industry sectors, on infrastructure and on physical assets like manufacturing plants, corporate campuses or supply chains can in turn create financial risk for the investors who own equity or have loaned capital to these companies. Researchers from Cambridge and Oxford University estimate in a plausible worst-case climate change scenario (a 4°C-increase outcome), the value at risk of an equity portfolio in 2030 may be between 5% and 20% versus a no-warming scenario.

Regulatory Pressures

Financial regulators have also been raising the alarm, most famously Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England and Chair of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), who referred to the phenomenon as the “Tragedy of the Horizon,” citing outcomes like the impact of rising seas on the world’s coastlines and infrastructure as one of the largest risks to financial stability around the world. The FSB, under the authority of the G20, created last year a special Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which recently released its recommendations for investors and corporations on better assessing and disclosing climate risk.

Also in the fall 2015, France became the first country to pass a law introducing mandatory extensive climate change-related reporting for asset owners and asset managers, the Energy Transition Law and its Article 173. The European Union also passed a directive late 2016 requiring pension funds in Europe to assess and disclose climate risk. Financial markets are global, and regulations in Europe very much affect U.S. investors.

These recent regulatory efforts typically break down climate risk into two distinct categories: energy transition risk, and physical climate risk.

Energy Transition Risk

The Energy Transition risk refers to the potential large-scale impacts of rapidly decarbonizing our economies and energy systems—as might happen, for example, if policymakers decided to take climate science seriously. The sectors most exposed are, of course, the energy sector, in particularly fossil fuels, but also energy intensive industries like steel, cement, and chemistry. The entire value chain of the transportation sector, from airlines to car companies, could see their financial performance altered dramatically depending not only on their emissions, but also on how they have prepared and manage this transition.

To measure and compare the energy transition risks, a few methodologies have emerged. The 2 Degree Investment Initiative(2dii) released its methodology as well as a “Transition Risk Toolbox” on how to integrate energy transition risk into scenario analysis for corporations, and is continuing to explore in depth the implications for financial markets. CDP, a central player in the world of corporate climate disclosures, has also developed a pilot methodology on Assessing the Low Carbon Transition (ACT), in partnership with ADEME, the French Environment and Energy Agency.

Physical Climate Risk

Physical climate risk includes both shocks and stresses from climate impacts: shocks refer to extreme weather events, ranging from storms to drought, cold snaps, extreme precipitation and windstorms. Stresses encompasses physical conditions that change over time and can affect anything from agriculture to retail sales or real estate property values, such as a shift in season—as observed most recently on the East Coast, with an unseasonably warm, spring-like weather, changes in precipitation patterns, gradual increase in temperatures, depletion of water, as well as sea level rise.

A few research institutions have started developing methodologies to quantify the linkage between climate hazards and economic indicators, including most notably the Risky Business Project on the economic risk of climate change in the United States, and Norwegian think tank CICERO’s recent report on Shades of Climate Risk. However, as shown in the Global Adaptation and Resilience Investment working group (GARI) report published at COP 22 in November 2016, investors are concerned over lack of data and tools to better measure risk in a financial portfolio, and benefits of investing in resilience.

What Can Investors Do to Reduce Climate Risk Exposure?

Despite the lack of established tools and methodologies, investors and portfolio managers can significantly hedge climate-related risks by assessing exposure of their asset portfolio, rebalancing exposure across assets, sectors and geographies, and developing targeted engagement strategies.

1. Assessing Exposure in their Asset Portfolio

Climate impacts can be felt across all asset classes. Real assets (infrastructure, real estate) represent the most direct risk for asset owners, but also the easiest to understand and manage. Investors typically know the exact geographic location for these assets, which enables a direct exposure hotspot analysis, as well as direct engagement with asset operators on climate risk and potential risk mitigation measures. Equity and credit portfolios are more complex to screen for and assess physical climate risk. Specialized providers like Four Twenty Seven provide screening tools, benchmarked equity scores, as well as custom portfolio risk assessments focused on physical climate impacts.

2. Developing Targeted Engagement Strategy

Investors have a critical role to play in ensuring climate risk management and disclosures become the norm rather than the exception. Especially in the U.S., in a context of regulatory pull back from financial regulations and climate policy, market forces must impose the transparency and responsibility needed to price assets accurately. This engagement can take many forms, from supporting proxy motions from activist investors like As You Sow to engaging with working groups like the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) at Ceres, or direct engagement with portfolio companies.

Companies are also encouraged to develop climate competency in the boardroom so that at least one of the corporate directors has a technical understanding and direct responsibility for bringing climate science and climate change considerations to the Board during strategic and risk management discussions. This pressure was heeded by ExxonMobil, after an extensive campaign to demonstrate that ExxonMobil was not accurately accounting for climate change science in its asset and reserve valuation: the company’s board recently added Susan Avery, a physicist and atmospheric scientist, to its board of directors.

Change will be slow, but the growing recognition that climate change is an economic and financial issue is our best hope to drive meaningful, long-term policy change, as well as to increase resilience and our society’s ability to adapt to climate change. Contrarian climate policy in the U.S. may slow down the adoption of new standards, but it won’t slow down climate change, and the need to address its social and economic impacts.

[Webinar] ARCCA Learning Session: SB-379 Implementation

SB-379 is a California law that calls on cities and counties to incorporate adaptation and resilience strategies into local hazard mitigation plans and the safety element of general plans. This ARCCA learning session, held on March 29, 2017, discussed the requirements and timeline for SB-379 implementation, as well as replicable strategies and good practices to integrate adaptation into local planning from Four Twenty Seven’s work with six cities in Alameda County. Participants also had the opportunity to learn about additional resources available to support their efforts.

Organized by the Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA) in partnership with Four Twenty Seven and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

Speakers:

  • Yoon Kim, Director of Advisory Services, Four Twenty Seven
  • Michael McCormick, Senior Planner, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
  • Kif Scheuer, Climate Change Program Director, Local Government Commission

 


 

Four Twenty Seven helps investorsFortune 500 companies and government institutions understand how to quantify and monetize climate change impacts on operations as well as social factors that affect their value chain. Our clients rely on Four Twenty Seven’s tools and models to factor into financial and operational planning processes. Learn more about how we are helping our clients assess and adapt to climate risks.

Climate Adaptation Planning – Challenges, Requirements, and the Need to Streamline

Climate Adaptation Planning – Challenges, Requirements and the Need to Streamline

The Challenge

Cities and counties across the United States face a variety of challenges from climate variability and change as well as non-climate stressors that changing climate conditions threaten to exacerbate. Local jurisdictions that repair infrastructure, make land use decisions, and engage communities in a way that accounts for future change, can help make their cities more resilient. However, many cities and counties lack the capacity, resources, and funding to assess climate risks, integrate climate adaptation into existing plans, and implement adaptation actions in the face of competing or more immediate needs.

Even so, a growing number of local jurisdictions are engaging in voluntary commitments to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A wide range of available resources makes this possible, and climate legislation increasingly requires it, but both can also make implementing a cohesive, streamlined adaptation strategy difficult. Several federal agencies (FEMA and NOAA), state agencies (California Adaptation Planning Guide), international institutions (GIZ), and NGOs (National Wildlife Federation) have developed climate hazard or vulnerability assessment and/or adaptation planning guidance and methods. Industry and sector-specific tools and literature are also available from a multitude of sources. No single option can meet the diverse adaptation planning needs of cities and counties across the US, but the range of sources also presents local jurisdictions with the challenges of selecting a methodology, building climate literacy, and using their assessments to inform multiple goals, plans and projects.

The Requirements

In California, legislation exists that actively seeks to promote the integration of adaptation and resilience into local planning processes. Senate Bill No. 379 Land Use: general plan: safety element (Jackson) (SB 379) calls on local governments in California to incorporate adaptation and resilience strategies into the Safety Elements of their General Plans as well as their local hazard mitigation plans starting in 2017. Assembly Bill No. 2140 General plans: safety element (Hancock) enables local jurisdictions to adopt a local hazard mitigation plan as their safety element, facilitating integration of hazard mitigation into General Plans.

To support local governments’ implementation of SB 379, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recently issued draft guidelines for integrating climate considerations into Safety Elements. The draft guidelines build on the State’s Adaptation Planning Guide (2012) and emphasize the need for communities to adopt a longer-term perspective in preparing for climate risks. They also highlight the importance of identifying linkages and complementarity across different elements of the General Plan and other relevant plans. Thus, there is a need to unify and streamline efforts to boost resilience and integrate adaptation comprehensively into city and county planning in a way that leverages local capacity and resources, uses the best available science and data, and meets local needs as well as relevant requirements.

It is important to note that these requirements are in addition to local commitments and planning processes that each come with their own timelines and demands. Cities that commit to voluntary agreements, such as the Global Covenant of Mayors are required both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of climate change by identifying climate hazards, assessing vulnerabilities, and developing adaptation plans. Cities may have adopted several plans that integrate or overlap with climate planning, such as Climate Action Plans, Adaptation Plans, Resilience Strategies, Transit Oriented Development Strategies and more. Adaptation has a crosscutting role to play across all these forms of city planning, so comprehensive integration of risk and vulnerability assessment and adaptation action is essential.

Towards a Solution

In support of implementation of integrated climate adaptation planning, Four Twenty Seven has developed a streamlined process to support local governments in their efforts to integrate climate risks into key planning efforts, such as local hazard mitigation plans, general plans, and climate action plans. Through our work for seven cities in Alameda County, on behalf of the County waste authority, StopWaste, we designed an assessment process and report to help cities meet the requirements of SB 379. For each city, this work responds to these requirements and others by providing a climate hazard exposure analysis and proposing a set of adaptation options to help each city plan for future conditions.

The assessment and report are designed to be applicable to multiple cities and useful for multiple planning processes. The objective is to develop one hazard assessment and set of adaptation actions that can fulfill or inform multiple city demands and decision making processes. In this case, the hazard assessment focused on asset-specific exposure, however, the methodology could be expanded to include the other components of vulnerability – adaptive capacity and sensitivity – in order to meet the needs of other jurisdictions and planning processes while promoting an accessible and streamlined approach to climate hazard assessment and adaptation planning. The second blogpost in this series on local adaptation planning will discuss climate hazard assessment in greater detail, and the third blog in the series will focus on adaptation planning.


Find ideas for successful planning in Four Twenty Seven’s Process Guide on local adaptation planning and a case study on our work in Alameda County

Denver Health and Climate Vulnerability Index

Extreme heat associated with changing climate conditions is expected to present challenges to human health through impacts such as heat stress. Working with Denver’s Department of Environmental Health, Four Twenty Seven developed a public health and climate vulnerability index and Story Map to illustrate the spatial patterns of vulnerability to extreme heat within the City of Denver. The interactive maps of the city track built environment, demographic, and human health related indicators associated with vulnerability to extreme heat.

Denver Health and Climate Vulnerability Index

The Story Map and vulnerability index will enable the Denver Department of Environmental Health, policymakers, and community groups to determine which communities are most vulnerable to extreme heat, highlight how to reduce risks to vulnerable populations, and facilitate the integration of health and vulnerable populations into climate change priorities.

Explore the app