How adaptation benefits can tip the cost-benefit scales for mitigation strategies

Many companies, utilities, and cities are looking to invest in technologies that mitigate climate change; however, they can often overlook the fact that many technologies typically considered as climate mitigation tools can double as adaptation tools as well. This can lead to potential projects failing to get funded because the additional benefits of adaptation are not considered.

Adaptation versus Mitigation

It is important to understand the difference between climate mitigation and climate adaptation. The goal of climate mitigation is to reduce greenhouse gases, the root cause of climate change. The goal of climate adaptation is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Let’s look at an example. A traditional mitigation strategy is installing solar panels, a low emission alternative to coal-fired or natural gas fired electricity generation. When evaluating whether a company or city should invest in solar panels the only benefits considered typically include utility cost savings and avoided emissions. However, solar panels also improve grid resilience. This is especially important in regions that experience high winds and forest fires. During periods of drought followed by high winds windblown power lines have been shown to spark deadly wildfires. In an effort to prevent fires from breaking out Pacific Gas & Electric Co cut electricity to over a million people in California in October 2019 [1]. Power outages pose a public health concern since they can affect electrically powered medical devices, the regulation of indoor temperatures, and exacerbate certain chronic conditions [2, 3]. The use of solar panels resulting in distributed energy can ensure individuals in dire need of power have it at all times, even when risks of forest fires increase.

A Missed Opportunity

When cost-benefit analyses are done on mitigation technologies the energy and cost savings are often the only benefits considered. On occasion, reduced maintenance costs and avoided CO2 emissions are also grouped into the benefits. Many of these technologies also improve the resilience and adaptability of cities, however, adaptation benefits are typically omitted from the equation. Cost-benefit analysis for mitigation projects should consider adaptation benefits in addition to energy and emissions reductions. For some technologies the adaptation benefits could tip the scales in the cost-benefit analysis and bring in non-traditional funders.

For years, cool roofs and building envelope improvements have been considered as energy efficiency measures by the building and energy industries. While the mitigation benefits of these technologies may be obvious at this point, the adaptation benefits are lesser known and thus worth exploring.

Building envelope improvements like air sealing, attic insulation, wall insulation, and weather stripping minimize unwanted air infiltration. This results in less heat loss in the winter, less heat gained in the summer, and reduced energy use to heat and cool buildings. The EPA estimates homeowners can save an average of 15% on heating and cooling costs by air sealing their homes and adding insulation [4]. Tightening the envelope when paired with mechanical ventilation also gives the occupants better control of the air that enters the building, allowing air flow to be directed to filtration systems if needed. This can prevent or minimize outdoor pollutants from getting into buildings, which is especially important in regions downwind of wildfires. 

Climate change has caused the number of acres to be lost to forest fires to more than double over the last 30 years [5]. Increasing occurrences of forest fires results in more particulates in the air increasing the health risks to tens of millions of people in the United States alone [6]. When evaluating envelope improvements the health benefits should be considered. Quantifying the health benefits of building envelope improvements could introduce new stakeholders and potentially new sources of funding, like state health agencies and insurance providers.

Cool roofs use reflective coatings or other roofing materials that reflect shortwave radiation and minimize heat uptake in a building. A comprehensive study from Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted in a number of cities in North America shows cool roofs reduce cooling electricity demand by 25% to 50% with the lower end of savings occurring in cities with colder climates such as Chicago, and higher end of savings occurring in cities with warmer climates such as Los Angeles [7]. Reducing building cooling loads is especially imperative for regions that are expected to experience urban heat island. Exposure to extreme heat can result in deadly illnesses, such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Between 1979 and 2010, heat was recorded as an underlying or contributing cause of death for nearly 8,000 Americans [8]. When quantifying the benefits of cool roofs urban heat island impacts, health effects due to higher temperatures, and future temperature projections should all be considered. 

What Needs to Change

The process for evaluating mitigation and adaptation technologies is similar. The primary differences are the timescales considered, the climate data used to quantify the benefits, and the breadth of benefits considered. In order to capture the adaptation benefits of traditional mitigation strategies evaluators should:

• Stop using historical climate data and begin using future climate projections. When evaluating the energy and cost savings potential of mitigation technologies typically historical data is used. Using historical climate data will underestimate the benefits of technologies that reduce cooling loads, like cool roofs.

• Consider the technology’s ability to offset the negative impacts of climate perils such as fire, flooding, and urban heat island.

• Evaluate non-energy benefits such as improved air quality, change in hospitalizations due to respiratory illness, and improved structure resilience.

The energy industry should also begin looking to non-traditional sources of funding for energy efficiency such as:

• State Health Departments

• United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

• Insurance providers

• Voluntary carbon markets (e.g., City Forest Credits and Nori carbon removal marketplace)

Today cities, states, utilities, and the federal government all offer funding for energy efficiency improvements. This is because the main benefit considered is the reduction in energy use and avoided emissions. If the non-energy benefits of these technologies are quantified additional stakeholders interested in investing in the tech may be identified, bringing in additional funding for these projects.

Looking for more information on how to quantify the benefits of adaptation benefits? Not sure how to pull in additional stakeholders? Contact us at info@twodegreesadapt.com. Our mission is to promote economic growth and asset resilience in spite of climate change by accelerating the deployment of climate adaptation technologies. Two Degrees facilitates the implementation of adaptation strategies which improve our cities and society by mapping adaptation strategies to sectors and geographies as well as developing partnerships between the private and public sector.

References

[1] Melley, B. and Chea, T. 2019. Lights out: Power cut in California to prevent deadly fires. AP News. https://apnews.com/438e08fd0e174e228e40a626ef9dceaf

[2] Lin S, Soim A, Gleason KA, Hwang SA. 2016. Association between low temperature during winter season and hospitalizations for ischemic heart diseases in New York State. J Environ Health 78(6):66–74, PMID: 26867294

[3] Ostro B, Rauch S, Green R, Malig B, Basu R. 2010. The effects of temperature and use of air conditioning on hospitalizations. Am J Epidemiol 172(9):1053–1061, PMID: 20829270, 10.1093/aje/kwq231.

[4] ENERGYSTAR.gov. (n.d.). Methodology for Estimated Energy Savings from Cost-Effective Air Sealing and Insulating. Retrieved from https://www.energystar.gov/campaign/seal_insulate/methodology.

[5] Vose, J.M., D.L. Peterson, G.M. Domke, C.J. Fettig, L.A. Joyce, R.E. Keane, C.H. Luce, J.P. Prestemon, L.E. Band, J.S. Clark, N.E. Cooley, A. D’Amato, and J.E. Halofsky. 2018. Forests. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 232–267. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH6

[6] Nolte, C.G., P.D. Dolwick, N. Fann, L.W. Horowitz, V. Naik, R.W. Pinder, T.L. Spero, D.A. Winner, and L.H. Ziska. 2018. Air Quality. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 512–538. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH13

[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Reducing urban heat islands: Compendium of strategies. https://www.epa.gov/heat-islands/heat-island-compendium.

[8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Climate change indicators in the United States, 2014. Third edition. EPA 430-R-14-004.