To achieve this goal, the
group hired The Rhodium Group to provide an independent analysis of the economic risks from a changing climate. In June 2014, the
Risky Business Project released their first report from Rhodium’s analysis
entitled “The Economic Risks of Climate Change to the United States.”
In terms of geography, the
Risky Business report concludes that the two main impacts of climate change –
extreme heat and a rise in sea levels – will likely affect certain regions of
the country more than others.
In the states along the Gulf Coast and in the Northeast and Southeast, higher sea levels and stronger storm surges could lead to increasing property losses by 2030 which could total as much as $35 billion each year. For states in the Midwest and Southwest, a larger number of high-temperature days could threaten human health, reduce labor productivity (especially for those working outside in land development and home building) and strain already aging electrical grids.
In the states along the Gulf Coast and in the Northeast and Southeast, higher sea levels and stronger storm surges could lead to increasing property losses by 2030 which could total as much as $35 billion each year. For states in the Midwest and Southwest, a larger number of high-temperature days could threaten human health, reduce labor productivity (especially for those working outside in land development and home building) and strain already aging electrical grids.
Yet there will be some areas which will benefit from a warmer climate, such as northern latitude states including North Dakota and Montana. With higher winter temperatures, both frost events and cold-related deaths will decline while the growing season for certain crops will lengthen.
So just what can the building industry do to be resilient and protect its own interests while continuing to house a growing population?
Several years ago, the NAHB conducted its own research into the effects of housing and homebuilding on GHG emissions using data from the Department of Energy, the Census Bureau and other agencies. Similar to the Risky Business Project, the association hired its own researchers and economists to review existing data on density, land-use patterns and vehicle usage.
What they concluded was that given the complexity of building communities, caution
is strongly recommended as choices are made about the future due primarily to
the law of unintended consequences. Solutions that may seem simple on the surface are actually much more
complex, and would involve various trade-offs that could create new problems to
solve.
For
example, increasing building density alone was shown to have minimal impacts on
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) unless it was also paired with providing access to
regional transportation centers. In
addition, there are also the issues of consumer choice and housing durability
which provide a huge reality check: Even
if the combination of higher densities, land-use diversity and access to
transit was maximized to reduce potential VMTs by 25 to 30 percent, those gains
would be slow to achieve given the existing housing stock of 133 million units,
up to 60 percent of which are still located in mostly car-dependent suburbs.
As
a consequence, the nation’s builders and developers can’t solve this problem
alone: they also need cooperation from
residents who vote with both their ballots and wallets, and that’s where an
“insurance policy” argument could assist.
Back in the late 1980s, when Risky Business Risk Committee member George Shultz was President Reagan’s Secretary of State, he urged Reagan to take action on the scientific controversy of that period: the shrinking ozone layer which protects terrestrial life from harmful solar radiation.
Back in the late 1980s, when Risky Business Risk Committee member George Shultz was President Reagan’s Secretary of State, he urged Reagan to take action on the scientific controversy of that period: the shrinking ozone layer which protects terrestrial life from harmful solar radiation.
While addressing the ozone layer is arguably much easier than general climate change, convincing various parties to cooperate rather than confront is perhaps our best hope for a sustainable planet.
