What Makes a Climate Resilience 'Game Changer'?

Following his dramatic decision to drop out of the race for the White House, political obsessives (present company included) are in the process of unpacking Joe Biden’s legacy as president.

An unparalleled record on climate action is one of the most consequential things he will hand over to his successor. Whoever next sits in the Oval Office will preside over a country better prepared for climate risks than it was four years ago. The Biden administration has plowed more than US$50bn into climate adaptation and resilience, much of this into poor, disadvantaged communities on the frontlines of climate change. His White House also masterminded the country’s first National Climate Resilience Framework, not to mention initiatives aimed at protecting workers from extreme weather and preparing federal agencies for climate shocks.

Even now, in the twilight of his administration, Biden’s climate-proofing of the US continues. Last week, the White House published the Climate Resilience Game Changers Assessment report — a guide to mobilizing investment in 28 technologies, practices, and strategies that should harden the US against ever-worsening climate risks, from hazard-resistant building materials to early-warning systems for vector-borne diseases.

28 Climate Resilience Game Changers

The report brings together a number of themes that have dominated the adaptation discourse this year. In some parts, the report functions as a call to action for private, public, and philanthropic investors to spend more on much-needed solutions, similar to entreaties made by the UN and Climate Policy Initiative, among others.

In others, it resembles an investment taxonomy — similar, but not identical, to those produced by Tailwind Climate, the Climate Bonds Initiative, Standard Chartered, and others.

Finally, it’s a codification of the administration’s own approach to adaptation and resilience, complete with a set of principles (first outlined in the National Climate Resilience Framework) on what “good” resilience looks like.

Making the Case

The importance of scaling up resilience financing is hard to understate. Remember, the US incurred almost US$93bn in damages from natural catastrophes last year. 2023 was also the fourth year in a row that the country suffered 18 or more US$1bn events. Analysis by S&P Global suggests that 17% of all US counties are likely to be impacted by two or more acute climate hazards this decade, ravaging the finances of local governments.

Data like this makes it clear that Biden’s US$50bn for climate resilience, while welcome, is just a drop in the ocean. To put it in context, US$50bn is less than half the budget of New York City. On its own, the Big Apple needs US$53bn to build resiliency against coastal storms. More money is needed.

Hence why the report aims to inspire “thoughtful and targeted investments” in resilience solutions from private, philanthropic, and non-governmental organizations. Private capital is desperately required — at scale — to supplement taxpayer investments in climate-proofing activities and technologies.

Since the report is asking private actors to reach for their wallets, such resilience investments are framed throughout as an opportunity, rather than as an exercise in loss avoidance — which is less attractive to investors. The report highlights well-cited analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) that for each dollar spent on popular adaptation and resilience measures, up to US$13 of financial benefits can result. It also cites a report (which cites a Bloomberg article, which cites a Bank of America analysis) that the adaptation market could be worth up to US$2trn by 2026. This figure looks somewhat fanciful given that in 2022 worldwide adaptation finance came to US$63bn. 

While the estimates may be suspect, it’s the messaging that matters most. The White House wants the private sector to see adaptation as a hot investment theme, instead of a charity case.

Another Taxonomy?

This approach is evident in the framing of the 28 game changers themselves. These are described as the kind of whizz-bang innovations designed to make investors’ mouths water. Artificial intelligence solutions are namechecked in the context of climate-related monitoring and forecasting. Desalination and water reuse technologies — which have huge commercial promise — also get a nod. Reading through the list, it’s clear many of the game changers could fit in the portfolio of your average Silicon Valley VCs as comfortably as they would in a public infrastructure fund.

The game changers are organized across eight sector-specific categories that together account for the bulk of the US economy, and four cross-cutting innovations: Nature-based Solutions, Information and Tools, Infrastructure, and Financing. This structure somewhat resembles that of the investment taxonomies referenced above. Tailwind’s taxonomy has eight “themes”, for example, including health, agriculture, and industry and commerce — which are all mirrored in the game changers assessment.

It also consciously mirrors the Net Zero Game Changers published by the White House in 2022. Naturally, this document highlights activities, technologies, and innovations that could power the low-carbon transition in America, again organizing them into sector categories and cross-cutting innovations. Verena Radulovic, vice president for business engagement at the think tank Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), suggest parts of the motivation for pushing out the latest game changers is to put resilience on parity of esteem with climate mitigation in private sector circles, and to get people thinking about both together.

“What I'd love to see is more of a nexus of technologies that do both — resilience and decarbonization. I often find that the resilience conversation and the decarbonization conversation, they are complementary, but they're never quite combined. Can we get to a place where we can have a ‘both/and’ conversation? So investors, public sector officials, and companies can be like: ‘Aha, okay, that solution speaks to multiple goals that I have, or that investment can be framed in a number of different ways.’ There's an opportunity to really connect [the resilience game changers] to decarbonization efforts,” she says. Radulovic was one of a select bunch asked to review and provide feedback on the game changers report before it was released.

37 Net-Zero Game Changers

I may personally have eaten my fill of adaptation taxonomies — there’s a lot out there, after all — but having the White House bring some order to the wild west of climate-proofing innovations has value to those with capital to allocate, as Katie MacDonald, co-founder of Tailwind Climate, explains: “By clarifying how investors and innovators can focus their time and drive the largest climate resilience benefits, the assessment promises to focus resources and talent in ways that will drive results faster.”

It probably doesn’t hurt that the game changers list was developed in concert with federal agencies, many of which have invested time and dollars exploring them. Private investors that embrace the game changers will therefore be diving into technologies and innovations that have already received government attention, which could bode well for their success going forward. The US government is the world’s largest procurer, after all.

Radulovic says the report sends a “signal” to private markets that the federal government wants to see some movement on these game changers: “It’s a call that requires a response. The report lays out the pieces, but what will really be the game changer is how they are all put together [by corporates and investors],” she says.

The question is whether the game changers taxonomy goes far enough. Does the report actually equip investors with the information they need to make substantive plays in the adaptation space? John Robinson, partner at Mazarine Venutures — an early-stage investor in water-related climate adaptation solutions — doesn’t think so.

“To attract more investment into climate adaptation, the authors should develop a follow-up report that offers color commentary on where/how checkbooks are making moves in climate adaptation today, including guidance on thesis development, exit markets, syndication, and overall portfolio strategy. Such a report makes this space more actionable than just a well-intentioned laundry list,” he says.

It’s certainly true that the game changers report lacks heft. It’s a brisk 31 pages in length, not enough to go deep on the 28 highlighted innovations. But there are plenty of links to other information sources, allowing readers to build out their understanding of each one. For example, the Nature-Based Solutions section highlights initiatives out of the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Emergency Management Agency, among others. These offer real-world examples of adaptation innovations that investors can learn from and run with, from enhancing pavement resilience to ecosystem-specific NBS.

Robinson is also concerned that the game changer categorization has gaps that may complicate its application as an investment blueprint. “The report mentions that the costs of flooding alone could be US$180 billion and US$496 billion annually, but on page 7 it’s not clear where that massive climate-change-induced risk lives, because flooding clearly doesn’t fit into ‘water’ as defined in the report. Which vertical do innovations that help industry and society manage climate-change-induced harmful algal blooms live in?  And which vertical do innovations that address sea-level rise and storm surge risks live in?” he asks. 

The report admits its list of solutions is not exhaustive. But there’s still a risk that investors glom onto the game changers’ taxonomy, to the detriment of other, more comprehensive approaches, because it has the imprimatur of the White House. Then investment may flow to these 28 while leaving others starved of capital.

Radulovic again comes back to the idea of the report being a signaling mechanism to financial institutions and corporates alike to get more involved. How they interpret the game changers is, ultimately, up to them.

“I think it would be wonderful for the private sector to develop specific financial products that allow for an investment in these solutions. What's just as important, if not more, to be able to take advantage of those solutions is an uptake — an increase in the demand signal — in the marketplace,” she says.

Promoting ‘Good’ Adaptation

While its utility as an investment taxonomy may be contestable, I’d argue the report succeeds greatly as a statement of what “good” adaptation should look like.

Climate-proofing is a high-wire act. True, adaptation solutions first and foremost have to guard communities, businesses, and individuals against climate shocks (or enable recovery from these shocks). However, they also have to be “climate positive” — meaning that they help, rather than hinder, decarbonization efforts — and prevent “maladaptation”, meaning activities that strengthen resilience in one community while imposing harms on others.

These aspirations are hardcoded into the game changers report via the Principles of Climate Resilience (see above), along with others that put forward a progressive view of adaptation. For example, one of the principles says that solutions should address, rather than exacerbate, disparities between and within communities, meaning they should work to close racial, wealth, and opportunity gaps. Another principle states that adaptations should be “people-centered”, considering and including the perspectives of all community members. This principle is reflected in those game changers that reference the importance of Indigenous Knowledge; the insights on climate, land preservation, and ecosystem maintenance provided by the country’s Tribal Nations and other indigenous communities.

It’s not particularly surprising that a climate resilience doctrine endorsed by a Democratic White House is unabashedly progressive. Regardless, I think it’s commendable. There’s a risk — perhaps a small risk, but a risk nonetheless — that adaptation is framed as a purely reactionary, conservative effort. Something pursued to maintain the status quo; to support business-as-usual in a world transformed by climate change. Something inherently backward-looking, rather than future-facing. Such framing could make it hard to generate the sort of enthusiasm for adaptation needed to mobilize entrepreneurs and investors. A progressive vision of adaptation, one that locates it within a broader effort to enhance human flourishing, is far more engaging — and inspirational.

As another US presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, once said about combating climate change: “It will be an exciting, noble, and rewarding adventure, taking us to places we can’t even imagine today.” 

That’s the kind of vibe the game changers report brings to the adaptation landscape. And it’s just the right kind to get more investors, inventors, and institutions stuck into the hard work of climate-proofing.

Thanks for reading!

Louie Woodall
Editor