The economic losses from disasters that are not covered by insurance continue to grow, but resilience projects are generating measurable positive returns.
If today’s funding landscape resembles disconnected wells, then climate resilience requires something closer to a watershed—where resources are intentionally pooled, directed, and circulated across geographies, sectors, and time horizons.
Two trends are colliding in state finance offices: Emergency, or “rainy day,” funds are shrinking at the exact moment climate-related revenue losses are mounting.
States are seeing their emergency reserves shrink for the first time since the Great Recession. The path forward is a new, two-pronged pro-growth, pro-resilience model that expands the state’s economic base while simultaneously modernizing the financial tools used to protect it.
Last week, New York City experienced another round of flash flooding thanks to a violent downpour, highlighting a thorny question: When do you harden infrastructure against stormwater, and when do you work with it?
An adaptation-minded property insurance system means safer, healthier, more resilient communities and economies that can both prepare for and recover from climate disasters in an affordable, sustainable, equitable way.
The Epicenter editors recently interviewed Daniel Zarrilli, former Chief Resilience Officer for New York City and current Chief Climate & Sustainability Officer at Columbia University, about his work during the post-Hurricane Sandy recovery effort.
Each time the federal government closes, it reinforces a simple truth: the center can no longer hold. The work of building resilient infrastructure and communities must now happen locally.
From stormwater systems to flood mitigation projects, we must redefine community-level investments in resilience not as a municipal cost, but rather as a direct investment in preserving property values and stabilizing the private cost of homeownership.
The majority of U.S. infrastructure is funded, built, and maintained by city councils, county boards, and state legislatures. But aging infrastructure, escalating climate risk, and other factors are converging to leave local communities less prepared to absorb their growing risk.
Historically, strong federal environmental regulations drove government action to manage water resources -- that’s changing as more communities experience flooding and see the benefits of nature-based solutions to mitigate those impacts.
Municipal leaders have an opportunity to lead their communities to a resilient future and mitigate flood risk. A case study from Algonquin, IL highlights resiliency investments that have fundamentally transformed how flooding affects the community and have yielded significant cost savings.
