As fires, floods, and droughts increasingly threaten homes, businesses, and other institutions, climate risk has become financial risk. This implies that homeowners and investors have been making location decisions without properly pricing the cost of potential peril, and that the government has been enabling the oversight.
It’s not just homeowners investing recklessly—many businesses have been equally short-sighted in where they place new assets, such as factories, and what to do with existing assets in once-safe areas now threatened by these perils. While laudatory efforts continue to mitigate climate change at the international level, it’s long past time to accept that the climate is already irreversibly changing, and we must adjust our mindset accordingly. We can’t just keep piling sandbags, pumping basements, dousing flames, and expecting government bailouts forever; a methodology is needed for homeowners, businesses, mortgage holders, governments—all of society—to figure out which assets to reinforce and what other courses of action are available.
Alas, we seem to be headed in the wrong direction. While virtually no private insurance companies retain residential flood risk in Florida, Virginia, and other coastal states due to sea rise, government-subsidized programs such as NFIP continue to keep residences insured. Making things even worse is a general lack of restrictions on where one can build and what can be built. A society that prides itself on free will and self-determination is loath to say what a property owner can and cannot build on their own land as long as it meets rudimentary building and zoning codes: So more and more people move into harm’s way in flood plains, low-lying coastal areas, and tinder dry western landscapes.
There are five basic choices in investing in resilience: reinforce, rebuild, rebound, restrict, and retreat. Together, they can be used as a decision-support tool for what to do with assets exposed to climate risk.