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:
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.
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.
Director of Advisory Services Yoon Kim moderated a panel at the 2017 National Conference and Global Forum for Science, Policy, and the Environment. The session, titled “Climate Data and Public Health: Mobilizing Adaptation Action”, explored the role of interactive data tools in the adaptation continuum – from diagnosis to planning to solutions – through concrete case studies. Presenters brought local public health and private sector hospital perspectives from across the United States. You can listen to a full recording of the panel here, and follow along with the presentation slides.
- Cyndy Comerford, Manager of Policy and Planning, San Francisco Department of Public Health
- Michele Shimomura, Public Health Manager, Denver Department of Environmental Health
- James Evans, Sustainability Analyst, Cleveland Clinic
- Deborah Weinstock, Director of the National Clearinghouse for Worker Safety and Health Training, Michael D. Baker, Inc.
- Jennifer de Mooy, Climate Adaptation Project Manager, Delaware Division of Energy and Climate
The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States comes at a time where the world needs more engagement in climate policy, and threatens to derail the world’s efforts to keep global warning below 1.5oC. Financial markets’ interest in low-carbon and resilience finance can help counter-balance the expected scaling back of U.S. engagement.
Trump’s Climate Agenda
While Donald Trump as a candidate did not expound much on his views on climate policy beyond calling climate change “a hoax” and promising to revive the coal industry in the U.S., the Republican agenda on climate change is well established. Trump’s short list of potential nominees for EPA and Dept. of Energy seems to confirm his alignment with the most conservative aisle of the Republican party on all things climate and environment. We expect the impact of the Trump administration on climate policy to be three-fold:
First, we anticipate a hard stop or slow down of U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, starting with the Clean Power Plan, mired in court since 2015, but also including other environmental regulations on air, water and land conservation. The incoming administration will likely face legal challenges since the Supreme Court mandated the EPA to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, but these typically unfold over years and the EPA can also count on industry-led lawsuits to help bring down some existing or in progress regulations.
Second, we expect a sharp budget cut for the EPA, but also for development aid related to climate change (the U.S. is an important contributor to development finance institutions like the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank) and grants and subsidies to support local government. The Obama White House has been instrumental in providing concrete support and resources on adaptation and resilience, in particular with the Climate Data Initiative and the Climate Resilience Toolkit – the future of these programs is now called into question. Trump may also consider cutting funds for critical agencies like NOAA and NASA, which could impact long term climate data collection and analysis, similar to what was experienced in 2013 with the ‘sequester’.
Third, the U.S. will likely shift from being a driving force for a strong global climate agreement to becoming a negative influence, that may provide an excuse for other countries to slow down their own efforts. While the future of the Paris agreement is not called into question even if the U.S. withdraws, the effectiveness of multilateral efforts will be undermined by the absence of the second largest emitter in the world at the table. It is unclear at this point if the EU and China can and will jointly take over that leadership role, but together they could provide a stabilizing influence and governments in both regions take climate change very seriously.
Market Forces At Play
However, many analysts have noted that even without policy support going forward, the transition to the low-carbon economy is already well underway. Trump is unlikely to succeed at reviving the coal industry with low natural gas prices, and renewables and low-carbon technologies have largely reached the point where they compete effectively with fossil fuel sources. Financial markets are providing steady support for new renewable and energy efficiency projects, with over $65.5B worth of green bonds issued in 2016 YTD.
The private sector’s support is also going to be needed for adaptation and resilience. Disengaging from climate policy at a time where each year breaks new heat records, and 2016 is already locked into being the hottest year ever on record does not bode well for the future. Mercer estimates climate change will cause $1.5 trillion of potential impact of climate on returns for portfolios, asset classes and industry sectors, and impacts on communities and human welfare will be even more devastating.
UNEP estimates the financing needed for adaptation will be at least $100B a year, while current adaptation funding from multilateral organizations hovers around $25B a year. While there is a strong consensus over the need to bring more private capital into adaptation and resilience investments, meaningful flows are yet to materialize.
Mobilizing Private Capital for Adaptation
In this context, the discussion paper released today by the Global Adaptation and Resilience Investment (GARI) working group brings welcome insights into how investors see opportunities and barriers to adaptation investments. GARI was launched at Paris COP21, in conjunction with the UN Secretary General’s A2R Climate Resilience Initiative, to bring together private investors and other stakeholders to focus on the practical intersection of investment and climate adaptation and resilience. At COP22, GARI released Bridging the Adaptation Gap, a discussion paper that summarizes the discussions of over 150 private investors and other stakeholders in 2016.
The paper confirmed a high level of awareness among participants, with 70 percent of private investors surveyed declaring they see both risk and investment opportunity from the impact of climate change. Seventy-eight percent of respondents thought evaluating the physical risk from climate change was “very important,” and over 60 percent confirming that they were already, in fact, considering climate risk in their investment portfolio. The lack of a common approach to measuring climate risk, however, was identified as a critical barrier, with respondents calling for a transparent, practical approach to assess physical climate risk.
GARI also brought attention to investors’ interest in opportunities for investments in adaptation and resilience. Seventy percent of participants indicated they would consider making investments that supported adaptation to climate change or climate change resilience now. The paper catalogs various investment types, including existing infrastructure, corporate, and fixed asset investments that support adaptation and resilience to climate change. Over 60 percent of respondent investors are considering investments today in resilient infrastructure and in companies whose products address the impact of climate change on water, agriculture, healthcare, energy, and financial services.
The engagement shown by GARI participants, which includes some of the largest financial institutions in the world, opens the door to bringing private investors into a number of adaptation opportunities in need of funding, such as developing and deploying new and existing technologies to help deal with the effect of drought in agriculture, better flood prevention, resilient retrofits to infrastructure and cool, efficient housing.
Not all adaptation projects are suited to private sector investments however, and banks will not replace governments in investing in social capital, development projects and lifting the most vulnerable out of poverty. But leveraging and guiding financial flows towards projects that enhance economic and social resilience create a win-win opportunity and a powerful way to continue to make progress towards a low-carbon and resilient world in spite of political headwinds.
California is a leader on climate resilience and adaptation efforts in the U.S. Yet translating adaptation policies into clear budget priorities can be a challenge. This Policy Brief provides a detailed analysis of the California budget for FY 2016-2017 with regard to adaptation and resilience spending, with an eye to lessons learned for other states and opportunities for improvement and clarification for future budgets.
California’s adaptation policy builds on a growing body of legislation – namely, SB246, AB1482, SB379, and Executive Order B-30-15 highlight California’s commitment to adaptation and resilience, as do numerous state and local programs. We found that these priorities are reflected in the 2016-2017 State budget, but somewhat disjointedly.
Governor Brown’s proposed budget, which the legislature passed on July 15, does not allocate specific amounts to programs labeled as adaptation- and resilience-focused. Rather, it supports programs related to drought resiliency, infrastructure upgrades, climate change, and other issues. Therefore, tracking resilience-specific finance is difficult; to overcome this challenge, we analyzed the 2016-2017 budget by looking at both specific sections of the budget and policies that relate to climate hazards. Within certain sections, we were able to compare allocations that support climate resilience to the total allocations for sector initiatives. Policies related to hazards include those designed to protect vulnerable populations and the overall strength of the state to respond to disasters.
In our view, California’s latest budget does not yet adequately address the state’s adaptation challenges, nor does it fully reflect the state’s priorities. However, with the final round of legislation passing before the close of the legislative year on August 31, 2016, the State set itself up for success by addressing gaps in allocations, prioritizing environmental justice and setting the stage to clarify cross-departmental standards for addressing climate change. It is now essential that the state move forward with the implementation of these initiatives in a clear, communicative way, in order to ensure that state funds engender climate resilience.
This Four Twenty Seven Policy Brief provides a summary of key findings from the Task Force of Climate-Related Financial Disclosures Phase I Report and highlights issues of interest to reporters and users of financial disclosures within corporations from the financial and non-financial sector.
What is the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures?
In December 2015, the Financial Stability Board created a Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The industry-led Task Force, chaired by Michael Bloomberg, is mandated to make recommendations for improving voluntary financial disclosure of climate-related risks. This coordinated international effort comes after investor advocacy organizations, like Ceres, have called attention to the poor quality of climate risk disclosures in financial filings (10-K management disclosures) and the lack of enthusiasm from the Securities and Exchange Commission in enforcing its 2010 guidance on climate change disclosure.
The Task Force released its Phase I report on April 1st. The report provides a high-level review of the existing landscape of climate-related disclosures, establishes fundamental principles for effective disclosures, and defines the scope and objective of the Task Force’s work through 2016. The report comes on the heels of an SEC ruling that ExxonMobil must include a climate change resolution on its annual shareholder proxy at the request of shareholders including the NY State Pension Fund.
Why is this Important?
The ultimate goal of the TCFD is to enable financial market participants to incorporate considerations on climate risks and opportunities into investment, credit and insurance-underwriting decisions, as well as to increase investor engagement with boards and management with respect to corporate climate risk management. This portends momentous change for the most exposed sectors. Over time we believe that the impact of the report has the potential to mainstream climate risk analysis and disclosure reporting requirements across all financial asset classes – equity, commodities, real estate, bonds – and will force a focus on climate resilience for all underlying assets – corporations, energy, agriculture, real estate, cities, and more.
Improved financial disclosures on climate-related risk will enable more informed decision-making within the financial markets and yield positive impacts for the economy. A higher standard on financial disclosures will also enable “appropriate pricing and distribution of risks throughout markets” and reduce financial instability by lowering the risk of an abrupt change in asset values (“transition” risk).
Just as the ultimate goal of the FSB and the G20 is to avoid another major financial crisis, In our view, the Task Force embodies the best climate change financial policy architecture that will promote market efficiency in a context of scientific uncertainty and information asymmetry. While the Task Force recommendations will not be binding, they come at a time when market authorities and financial regulators are looking to gain a greater understanding of climate change impacts on financial markets, and the Task Force recommendations will constitute a critical reference point for consensus on climate risk disclosures, and facilitate international standardization of requirements.
The Current Landscape of Climate Risk Financial Disclosure
The Task Force report finds that current climate risk financial disclosures are fragmented and incomplete, with a lack of agreement on what constitutes materiality. Most disclosures consist of boilerplate language that does not provide decision support or even useful information to investors. They also fail to acknowledge an organization’s specific risk profile and exposure to climate risk. Finally, most disclosures pertain to climate information in general and not to climate-related financial information.
The TCFD report highlights in particular the lack of comparability across disclosures due to ad hoc reporting practices, which prevents analysis of possible systemic risk in financial institutions’ portfolios and in financial markets at large. These findings are consistent with previous reports from Ceres and from the Sustainability Accounting Standard Board (SASB), as noted in their Technical Bulletin on Climate Risk from January 2016.
Proposed Principles for Effective Disclosures
The Task Force lays out seven fundamental principles for effective disclosures:
- Present relevant information.
- Be specific and complete.
- Be clear, balanced, and understandable.
- Be consistent over time.
- Be comparable among companies within a sector, industry, or portfolio.
- Be reliable, verifiable, and objective.
- Be provided on a timely basis.
While these principles are fully aligned with general principles of financial disclosures and with previously established climate disclosure framework, notably from the Climate Disclosure Standard Board, they raise a number of practical challenges when applied to climate risk disclosure. Climate science continues to evolve, as does global climate policy, making it difficult to be “consistent” over time. Climate impacts touch businesses and the economy well beyond the walls of any given corporation, but accounting for these indirect risks in a “specific and complete” manner is extremely challenging. An accepted methodology to measure and quantify climate risk will go a long way towards ensuring that disclosures meet these principles, and that the information is “comparable among companies.”
Looking Ahead: Phase II Scope of Work
The Task Force will seek to establish guidance as to what needs to be reported, in what format, and for what purpose.
Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities
The first challenge the TCFD will take on is defining what qualifies as climate-related risks and opportunities. In the framework outlined in the Phase I report, the TCFD echoes the common dichotomy between “physical risks” (e.g. extreme weather events) and carbon-related “non-physical” risks (e.g. carbon regulations, cost of low-carbon technology, asset liability, etc.). In our view, this framework is bound to evolve to better account for the breadth of regulatory, technological, market/economy, and reputational impacts directly related to climate risks and opportunities, including for example: changes in zoning laws, cost of adaptive technologies, changes in commodity pricing, etc.
Second, the Task Force will ensure climate-related risks and opportunities are considered in the broader context of the reporting entity’s strategic management. The Task Force will encourage disclosures pertaining to the governance process, specifically how boards and executive leadership consider and approach climate risks and opportunities.
Entities: Preparers and Users
Third, the Task Force will develop recommendations for reporting by non-financial companies – mainly publicly-traded corporations – as well as by financial intermediaries, investors, and asset managers that may be exposed to climate change in their portfolio. While recommendations will likely focus on companies above a certain size, they may also apply to privately-held corporations. In the financial sector, the Task Force intends to emphasize risks associated with underlying loans and investments in companies, and possibly into real estate investments as well.
The Task Force is also interested in better understanding how the climate-related disclosures will be used and by whom. The objective is that disclosures be provided in a format such that users across the entire financial value chain can integrate climate risk metrics into existing risk assessment, portfolio analysis, asset allocation, and other financial decision-making processes.
Information to be disclosed
Finally, the Task Force will give particular attention to the information being disclosed. This information may include both quantitative and qualitative disclosures, providing “consistent and comparable data and metrics” to be aggregated across portfolio.
For quantitative metrics, an established accounting system exists for carbon accounting, but no such common methodology is available for physical and indirect impacts of climate change, especially not across a broad range of sectors and asset classes. The Task Force will need to balance the conflicting needs between finding a lowest common denominator metric that can be used across sectors, and disclosing data and metrics that provide relevant insights into sector-specific risks. The Task Force may encourage greater use of scenario and sensitivity analysis to support forward-looking assessments of risks and opportunities.
For qualitative disclosure, the Task Force will consider governance, transition strategies, priorities, and processes. This indicates that companies with a vision and plan for greater climate resilience, together with well-supported Key Performance Indicators showing progress towards established resilience milestones, will be better positioned to protect shareholder value.
The Task Force will be working on Phase II elements through the end of 2016 and will deliver its recommendations to the FSB in December 2016, with a finalized report expected in February 2017. The Task Force intends to integrate and leverage stakeholder input throughout the process and is currently inviting feedback through May 1st in the form of a detailed questionnaire on its website. The questionnaire solicits structured feedback on reporters’ and users’ needs, scope and definition of climate risks and best practices.
The regulatory landscape of climate risk disclosure is evolving rapidly. Corporations and investors will be well advised to stay current on legal and policy changes related to climate change risks, and to deepen their understanding of climate change science and its impacts on their business. While climate change presents a wide array of direct and indirect impacts, many of these impacts can be forecasted and managed. Businesses able to take in new knowledge on climate change will be able to stay ahead of the curve, manage regulator and investor expectations, protect their value, and capitalize on opportunities.
TCFD Phase I Report
Ceres Cool Response Report
We have all heard about the doomsday climate change can bring. Rising seas, blistering heat waves, and epic storms are but small samples from the chronicle of destruction possible due to climate risk. When considering the doomsday scenarios, questions arise about where, when, and how these changes will take place.
Recent research from a team of climate scientist led by James Hansen posits that the timeframe in which we will begin to see the impacts from sea level rise and super storms, may be more severe and shorter than expected. The paper argues that the phenomenon of stratification (when melting freshwater from glacier melt disrupts the saline pumps of the deep ocean, causing warm water to collect at the bottom of the sea where it melts ice shelves) along with other feedback loops, have not been fully captured in previous climate models.
The Hansen Theory
Hansen and his team suggest that with the new math in place “ice mass loss from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield multi-meter sea level rise in about 50, 100 or 200 years.” In other words, ice melt that was previously thought to be occurring at a predictable rate is now potentially occurring at rate several times higher.
This is not the first time that the science has been updated and caught the eye of the media. As a result, climate scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann have become well known in environmentalist circles. In 2012, climate activist Bill McKibben became especially revered when his article in Rolling Stone Magazine: Climate Change’s Terrifying New Math gathered similar attention and reactions from the media as the Hansen report.
As suggested by the new research and steady stream of media updates, it is clear that climate science is a constantly evolving and improving practice. While it is true that the data points are becoming more robust, and new discoveries like stratification are being baked into the latest climate models, scientists will be the first to tell us that we still have a lot left to learn about how climate change is altering our earth’s systems.
Michael E. Mann, the scientist who popularized the classic hockey stick graph stated in response to the new report “Some of the claims in this paper are indeed extraordinary. They conflict with the mainstream understanding of climate change to the point where the standard of proof is quite high.”
Towards Climate Adaptation Science?
While the work climate scientists like Hansen and Michael Mann continues to advance the science, some members of the climate community are beginning to question the value of continuing to refine the accuracy of climate science. Suggesting instead that it may be time to refocus resources traditionally spent on increasing the degree of confidence towards adaptation science.
The argument is that after a certain point the ability for climate science to generate new insights is subject to diminishing returns. As such, it doesn’t matter as much to nail down exact predictions of when and where and by how much the impacts of climate change will hit, when we know they are already here and will continue to grow. With the climate science we have now, we are very good at projecting what 60 cm of sea level rise looks like, and how that sea level rise will impact our coasts. However, we are not great at knowing when that sea level rise will happen.
Those wanting to focus resources on adaption science argue that this distinction shouldn’t really matter. Think of the results of climate science like a high blood pressure reading, how bad the reading is doesn’t change the fact that you still have to go exercise and change your diet if you want to be healthier; and its better to hit the gym sooner rather than later.
Using Science for Decision-Support
This is not to say that advancements from Hansen and other climate scientists are irrelevant. On the contrary, it is extremely valuable work, but their findings provide information that should be used to spark interventions that buffer vulnerable regions from the worst of climate change.
At Four Twenty Seven we are picking up where the scientific reports stop. By translating the key warnings and lessons of climate science into strategies that can reduce financial, infrastructural, and social risk, we can prepare for the impacts of climate change regardless of when they occur. By analyzing, monitoring, and providing site specific insights into how climate change affects normal operations, we manage the complexities for stakeholders whose responsibilities cover a wide range of populations and global facilities.
Having reliable climate data and a robust understanding of the changes climate change has put in motion is a great starting point for determining risk factors. LIDAR data from NOAA and other hydrological data sets can be used to anticipate coastal vulnerability to climate charged changes like sea level rise. NASA has its own set of valuable climate data, which has been used to map everything from melting ice in Greenland to diminishing wine grape harvests in France and Switzerland. Such robust and continuously updated datasets allow for meaningful vulnerability assessments that can inform effective adaptation plans.
Our team has been putting climate data like this to use for our clients. As part of our commitment to the White House Climate Data Initiative we created a dashboard tool of Heat and Social Inequity in the United States, designed to help health care providers understand the risks climate change poses to their community and hospital operations. It’s through tools like this that we hope to help our clients prepare for the risks climate change presents to the businesses and communities they serve.
It is our hope that the science continues to advance, and new research like that presented by Hansen and his team continues to give us a better picture of the rate at which we can expect climate change to escalate. We also hope to use this information to advance the important work of adaptation. Solving climate change takes both good science and a roadmap forward. A ‘climate doomsday’ becomes less scary when we realize the power is in our hands to be prepared regardless of when it happens.
Learn more about our work to prepare for the impacts of climate change.
A busy medical ward is the last place you want the lights to go out in the event of a hurricane, flood or extreme weather event. These are also the conditions that can drive surges of patients to emergency rooms for treatment at a rate that can quickly outpace the hospitals capacity to react. Climate change increases the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events and conditions – from asthma to vector diseases — likely to increase demand for healthcare. However, most hospitals have yet to integrate local climate change projections into their risk management and planning processes.
Working with a coalition of healthcare networks and non-profit Healthcare Without Harm, we developed an award-winning user-friendly dashboard for hospitals to better understand how climate change effects their operations and the patient population that they serve. This innovative application enables participating healthcare networks to integrate climate risk analytics into their hazard and vulnerability assessments, strategic communications and long-range planning.
The Resilient Hospital Dashboard is an interactive platform that enables healthcare networks to identify hotspots, key drivers of risk, and the specific local impacts faced by each of their hospitals. By using climate, socio-economic, public health and facility specific data, our dashboards analytics help hospitals understand the impact of climate change on their community and patients.
How does it work?
Our Resilient Hospital dashboard integrates local climate projections and applies healthcare indicators unique to each hospital’s situation to account for results specific to their populations. It provides hospitals with a cost-effective way to access and understand climate data relevant to their day-to-day operations and specific to the populations they serve.
In the same way that doctors and care providers use their expertise and medical knowledge to provide treatment that returns the best long-term health outcomes for their patients, our applications leverage climate and healthcare data to provide beneficial operational outcomes. It enables our clients to consider both the near and long-term impacts of climate change and expertise that can inspire actions that enable healthcare professionals and hospitals to operate when the need for their services is greatest.
From Data to Patients
Through the Resilient Hospital Dashboard we aim to tell a story about how hospitals can improve the bottom line, and do so by capturing the many individual stories of climate change. Behind every data point we use to identify risk and impact is a living, breathing patient admitted for treatment of heat stroke, asthma, or other environmental event.
Our data analytics and research shows that the people getting admitted for care are the most vulnerable among us. They include the young, the old, and the marginalized. While we originally set out to identify opportunities for hospitals to improve their operations — and our dashboard does that too, what we ultimately created is a data-driven, visual representation of the footprint climate change is leaving on society.
The trends we are seeing create a much-needed understanding of how climate change impacts communities. From this understanding we can find opportunities to act, and help doctors and care providers choose what actions can best support their planning process, enabling them to provide more consistent and higher quality of care, resilient to the operational shocks and stress of climate change.
Contact Aleka Seville for a demo or for more information: 415-930-9090
The healthcare sector is often the first to witness the impacts of poor air quality, extreme weather patterns and other climate related hazards that impact the health of their community. From heat waves to floods and exposure to rapidly spreading vector borne illnesses like malaria, lyme disease and more recently the Zika virus, the nexus of climate change and human health gets stronger every day.
We asked our director of research, Nik Steinberg, to present his work to inform the healthcare industry about the effects of climate change and the trends he is observing in how healthcare professionals approach climate change.
1. Tell us more about your work with the healthcare industry and how you help them build resilience into their operations.
Last year we built a new decision-support tool for hospitals across the United States. The work was fascinating because it combined systems analysis, climate science, and epidemiology. We started by identifying all the projected climate hazards within a hospital’s service area and then we sorted out the characteristics of those hazards – their projected frequency, severity, and timing. From there, we determined if the hazard was likely to impact the hospital itself and/ or the health and safety of the community. Next, we attempted to co-locate the hazards with exposed populations and facility systems to get a better idea of which type of patients are most exposed to heat waves and poor air quality, and where those patients live.
Our work is quite novel because it transforms something that once might have felt uncertain and ambiguous for some healthcare professionals — climate change impacts — and places it in context of their local hospital, community, and the people they interact with everyday.
We have observed that resilience building in the public health sector starts with a willingness and capacity to change – for whatever reason that may be. Our tool facilitates the information gathering and lays the foundation for an impact assessment, giving health professionals a defensible starting point and powerful communication tool on the local impacts of climate change on their patients.
2. What can healthcare professionals gain from learning about the risks of climate change, and your work specifically?
After our detailed research is complete, we step back and look for hotspots and correlations. Do future heat waves and poor air quality pose a considerable health risk to the community? Which patients are most exposed and where do they live? Is there a strong poverty-health connection in the community? How likely is it that heavy rainfall will become more severe over time and affect ambulatory services and hospital access?
These are the questions we try to address in our work so that hospitals can prioritize their resilience efforts and reach out to certain parts of the community or strengthen parts of the facility.
Many healthcare professionals are aware of these climate-related risks and their connection to the communities they serve, but this work helps outline the linkages that connect climate change and health at a local level and assigns real numbers to the expected impacts of that dynamic connection.
3. What trends are you seeing at the nexus of human health and climate change?
Human health has always been influenced by climate and weather, but the growing frequency of extremes like drought and flood and extreme temperatures generates a whole new set of challenges. Take, for example, the recent spread of the Zika virus and the drought-flood cycles that led up to heavy downpours across much of Brazil, leaving pools, puddles, and ponds for mosquito breeding, and allowing the Aedes spp. mosquito to surge across the country and eventually the rest of the Americas.
Unfortunately, changing rainfall patterns, like many climate impacts, tend to have a disproportionate effect on the vulnerable. A similar story can be told about oppressive heat. Global temperature increases also mean more severe extreme temperature, and recent heat waves in India, Russia, and even the U.S. hit the poor and outdoor laborers the hardest. Changing weather patterns and shifting climate zones will also expose new populations to these extremes.
Health effects are not always physical, and there is growing research showing the association between mental health and climate change. For illnesses like Lyme Disease or West Nile Virus, the mental health effects are very direct, but more often, the psychological responses to both disasters and acute ongoing impacts can induce a range of mental health consequences. I think the discussion around mental health and climate change will continue to grow as public health officials work to identify vulnerable populations and decipher the attribution of things like severe heat, poor air, and disasters to well-being.
There are positive trends, however, in the way researchers and public health officials are tracing vulnerability and identifying pathways of exposure. The body of research at the nexus of public health and climate change is growing, and one of the most promising outcomes of this work is the story it tells. From hospital directors to policymakers, decision-makers understand that our community’s health calls for aggressive action on the public health front to minimize and respond to a range of imminent new threats that were once uncertain or distant.
Aleka’s responses speak to the intersections between public planning, hazard response, and the measuring and reporting the effectiveness of adaptation solutions. Learn more about how we are partnering with governments to build resilience and prepare for the impacts of climate change from our partner page.
1) What makes a community resilient?
While our shared definitions of resilience are typically quite broad, one of the factors that I see as a major enabler of resilience is the “mainstreaming” of adaptation planning – accounting for climate change impacts in nearly every public planning process, from hazard mitigation to general and capital planning.
Communities that commit to assessing climate risk within existing planning processes are able to build on existing frameworks and, sometimes, tap existing budgets, to mitigate these risks. Incorporating resilience goals and metrics into current planning processes sets the stage for critical cross-agency coordination when implementing adaptation solutions.
2) Where should a community start when developing an adaptation plan or resilience strategies?
At Four Twenty Seven, we talk about the “Adaptation Learning Curve” when deciding how we can best assist a community or organization in building resilience. Key to this discussion is an understanding of where the community is starting from and where they’d like to go based on their unique vulnerabilities, climate risk exposure, and adaptation goals. It’s difficult to make progress or prioritize resilience building without first understanding and raising awareness about the problems at hand. Therefore, we often begin by offering customized training and education activities to help communities engage key stakeholders and build support for action from the very start.
3) How can you tell if a community is making progress in building resilience?
Resilience is indeed a journey – one that looks different for every community. Given jurisdictional responsibilities and limitations, cities, counties, regional agencies and states all have a role to play in creating stronger, more resilient communities. The hard part is effectively coordinating those efforts. While a specific community could be making progress towards their unique resilience goals, if these goals are not informed by the efforts of other local agencies, this is a real risk of investing in maladaptive efforts. We challenge the communities we work with to think beyond their own jurisdictions when developing resilience goals. Those goals can then be informed by metrics that reflect not only what is happening within that community, but how those efforts contribute to resilience on a broader scale.