From Risk to Resilience: Wildfires and the Insurance Industry's Climate Reckoning

Hi everyone, this is America Adaptz, the Climate Change Podcast. Hey adapters, welcome back to another exciting episode. Returning to the podcast is Dr. Carolyn Kuski, a leading expert in climate risk and insurance and co-founder of Insurance for Good. You'll learn what her new organization is doing and what inspired her to create it. We discuss how climate change is not only intensifying risks like wildfires in California, but also driving radical changes to insurance markets worldwide. Carolyn shares insights on how the industry can respond to these challenges by closing protection gaps, incentivizing resilience, and creating innovative solutions to build more climate resilient communities. It's an important conversation at the intersection of insurance, wildfires, and the future of climate adaptation. We'll hear how states can take the lead in innovative approaches to insurance coverage as the federal government is likely to step back in a big way in the coming years. Okay, let's join Dr. Carolyn Kuski and learn how insurance markets might drastically change in response to a changing climate. I'm talking with Dr. Carolyn Kuski. Carolyn is the co-founder for Insurance for Good. Hey Carolyn, welcome back to the podcast. Hi Doug, it's always great to chat with you. You are now really just regular on this podcast, but I love having you on and I thought it was really important to get you on because what's going on in California and the wildfires and what that might mean for insurance. But I also want to talk a bit about insurance for good and we're going to start off with that and you've been on and you've talked a little bit about that, but let's dig into that a bit more. What is insurance for good? Thanks. It's a new nonprofit we just started and it's focused on helping communities and the public sector harness insurance for social and environmental goals. So kind of like the name says, how can we make insurance a force for good? Might seem obvious, but what inspired you to create this sort of it's its own entity? Yeah, I think there was several motivations. One, as you talk about a lot with your guests, we're in an environment right now where risks are really growing. A lot of that is the climate risks. Climate disasters are worsening and record breaking has become this new normal for us from households to businesses to entire sectors and regions, but we also face unprecedented global challenges. Climate again being a big one, but we're also thinking about things like rising inequality and biodiversity loss and solving these big global challenges requires strong and rapid action across sectors. And we think insurance can be a part of that solution set since it underpins a lot of economic activity and can help enable the investments we need. And then finally is that insurance as we know it is breaking in many places and at the moment we really need it more than ever, right? Because of those risks increasing and the frequency and pace of disasters, we need that financial protection and yet it's getting harder and harder to find and find affordably and cover the wide range of economic needs people have. We think new solutions are needed so insurance can be a really positive force, but only if we make some changes in the types of insurance available in our policy and regulatory frameworks. Yeah, so that's where insurance for good comes in. What is the response been? And you have this unique place that a lot of the policy wonks in this area, but folks actually in the insurance industry too. So what does that response been? Yeah, I'm excited. It's been really positive and we've been hearing from lots of folks who are excited to partner with us and that makes me really happy because as I think Doug we've talked about before, a lot of the solutions here require those partnerships, right? Across sectors, across disciplines. And so I'm really hoping insurance for good can become a bit of a hub for this growing community of practice, you know, for people who see the potential here because I think if we're aligned in working together, we can be more than the sum of our parts or whatever the right metaphor is there. So I'm optimistic. I should say to your listeners, if anyone wants to dive deep on insurance with us, please reach out, we'd be excited to chat. That was my follow-up question. You just said they could do that, but a lot of times people need to really have that explained to them. How are they engaging with you? What literally would they be doing? What kind of person or organization is it nonprofits? Is it state governments? How are they literally engaging with you? Yeah, good question. Our organization is focused on helping nonprofits, communities and the public sector. And we're going to be doing four big buckets of activities. One is curating shared resources. This will be through our website, through our blog, and through our newsletter. You can sign up on our website, where we're going to be pulling to gather the best information across the ecosystem to help people learn and stay current on what's going on. So first one, reach out, join the newsletter if that's helpful, but also if you're a part of the content creators in this space, we want to uplift the great work. So please share that with us as well. And then try to fill gaps where we see them. The second one is around education and capacity building. We're going to be doing a series of trainings and convenings. We did our first one on parametric insurance about a week ago that was, I think, really helpful. It was designed as a Q&A with experts, so people could submit their questions in advance and get them answered. Again, tune in for those events. If there's types of training and education folks want to see that they're not, and they need help with, reach out. The third one is we're going to be launching a innovation catalyst, kind of looking at getting new solutions off the ground in particular places, solving particular problems. So more to come on the details of that in the next couple of months, but that's another area where we'd love to work with people. And then the final one is around the policy and regulatory change. We need to make sure we have the right institutional structures that we can harness insurance for these more positive social and environmental outcomes. And again, that's probably going to be a lot of more sort of specific state-based work, as you know, insurance is regulated at a state level. So that's the suite of things. It's a lot. We're very small right now. And just getting started, so we do have some capacity constraints, but hopefully we'll be growing and expanding over the course of 2025. Now obviously have links in my show notes of people want to look you guys up. Fantastic. All right, Carolyn, we're going to do a bit of a massive pivot here. And we're going to talk about the California wildfires and what that might mean for the insurance markets. But before we get started talking about the wonky stuff, I want your perspective or your reaction. And we're going to park the human tragedy side of this. Obviously, that's the biggest deal here. But what were you thinking when you saw these California wildfires and you were thinking about insurance? What kind of came to your head? Yeah, that's a good question. And yeah, of course, there's so much tragedy that's happening and people are really struggling. And of course, yeah, we're thinking about them, but you're already seeing these questions being raised about what this means for insurance in California. And I think that's because, you know, really going back to the 2017 and 2018 wildfires. And now these recent blazes rank up there with those in terms of number of structures damaged and that type of thing. But those two fire seasons really created a period of destabilization in the California insurance market. So you saw insurance companies facing massive losses after those fires and really rethinking how much exposure in California they could handle and maintain their business model and profitability. So you saw insurers reduce their coverage. Those were things like you've heard talked about probably in the news non renewals where insurance companies wouldn't renew existing policyholders. There were some very public statements over this time period of big insurance saying they weren't going to write new policies in the state. And so as the private sector contracted and pulled out of high risk areas, we saw more and more residents having to move into the state fair plan. That's the government created, but independent non-voluntary association of insurers in the state to provide wildfire coverage to folks who couldn't find it elsewhere. And as we've seen in the reporting, the fair plan has a very high concentration in some of the areas that did just recently burn. So there's been this ongoing kind of market shift happening in California recently. I want to get into talking about some of these things. It means a pre-disaster, post-post-disaster, but one of these concepts is how insurance can support greater investments and resilience. And we've chatted about this. What do you mean by that? Yeah, I think my feeling on this is that as long as risks are continuing to grow, insurance is going to be stressed, because it's hard to provide insurance and insurance has to be more expensive when risks are high. So while we should be talking about things like the role and structure of the fair plan in our state programs and that type of stuff, we can't really financially engineer our way out of the crisis of growing risk. We have to focus on the climate adaptation, the risk reduction, the resilience that so many of your guest and listeners are engaged in. And that's what's going to then spill over to create more stable insurance markets once we can get the risk under control. So a lot of that work takes us, as you know, away from insurance and into things like building an architecture and land use and zoning and these types of things, but are really important to actually creating long-term stable insurance markets. But so at the center of that, I've been thinking a lot about, well, what can insurance companies actually do to help support that effort more? And I think in some ways right now, there's concern that those links between insurance and resilience aren't as strong as they could be and how can we make them better? As part of that resilience planning, there's this whole concept of pre-disaster planning and post-disaster planning. And it might seem obvious to some folks, but there's quite a few differences in that whole process. Yeah, exactly. And I think there's opportunities for insurance to help in both cases, right? Pre-disaster. There's been this hope that insurance pricing, if it's priced to reflect risk, should give you discounts when you invest in risk reduction. And if you live in a safer community, your insurance should be cheaper. But we hear a lot from communities and households who feel like they've made investments in risk reduction and resilience. And they're not seeing changes in insurance market outcomes. And so one thing that we're interested in is how to make that feedback loop stronger and better, right? That is when folks invest in risk reduction that they see those impacts. In the case of California, this is something the commissioner addressed in the last couple of years asking companies to start providing premium reductions for investments in wildfire safety. We've seen it in the Gulf Coast areas as well, where it's now pretty common in most of the Gulf Coast states that if you fortify your home, so fortified homes is a standard that's been developed by the Institute for Building and Home Safety. That's really like the gold standard. And they actually have like, I think gold and silver levels, but it's like the best in class for building a strong home against hurricane winds. And there's just really great evidence about how much that lowers losses. And so we've seen in that region that you can get lower insurance premiums, because your loss is lower, which is really important. What we're still missing in this space, though, is a way to turn those premium reductions into a financing flow to pull more capital into those resilience investments in the first place, right? So if you had the money to fortify your home, you can then get the discount, but we're not seeing a generate more upfront money. I think there's a lot of thinking about how we can kind of couple financing models for resilience with some of these insurance savings that we still haven't quite cracked the nut on, but I think it is one area pre-disaster. It's hard enough to get money for pre-disaster. And when we say pre-disaster, we could say that's adaptation planning and then all these things that you could do to fortify your homes. But then when it's post-disaster, that's when it's more likely huge amounts of money are going to become available, because obviously you want to help people rebuild and all those kind of things. It's just poor planning, though. And it's just irresponsible, like it's a blank check when it's post-disaster, and it seems like if they were to flip that around, it would help lower the post-disaster costs. And when you were talking, it occurred to me that here's some subsidies to fortify your homes against wildfire. Let's say it's sea level rise. Has there ever been some subsidy for actually buying insurance? Because you've written before about having insurance has all these other benefits, too. And so has there ever been like a subsidy for just having homes insured? No, but there's been a lot of talk about it. And that's interesting, because you're right, we have really good research evidence that when people have insurance, they recover better. They recover faster. Their community recovers better, because they have the dollars to do their own rebuilding, which means they can participate in the local economy sooner. There's research evidence that lack of insurance widens income inequality. So yeah, there's all these that it protects lenders and our mortgage market. There's all these benefits. And there's long been talk that one of the real challenges is that the people who need that financial protection the most, because they don't have large liquid savings. It's hard for them to access credit post-disaster or lower income households. And yet they're also the ones who can't afford insurance, right? And so for example, with our flood insurance program, there's been discussion over the last 15 years that it might be good federal policy to put in place some type of assistance for those households with the cost of flood insurance, so that they had the insurance protection they need. And their recovery would be better. And it might lessen demand for federal resources post flood as well. That's never actually materialized, even though it's been introduced in Congress like every year for a decade. But I think it's an important idea that we need to keep thinking about. And of course, it could be implemented at a state level too. You could think about making our state insurance programs also offer, say, discounted assistance to lower income households, for example. I want to talk a bit more about this. And since the California wildfires, I've actually learned a ton of what are some actual at that individual home basis. What can they do to help minimize the threat of wildfire? And you have blocks between other homes. It's the materials that they use to build in their houses. But it occurs to me that even if you're subsidizing that, and this has been a problem because they have these regulations in California, California has actually been quite responsible. You just can't mandate it overnight. If a third of the homes have done everything possible to make themselves wildfire proof. And yet, you still have two-thirds of the area, not, isn't it pointless? Some homes will survive. But if you're not collectively doing this, I guess from an insurance company's perspective, it's like you're still just incredible risk there, even though you just have some homes deciding to do it. Is that makes sense? Yeah. And I think that's one of the challenges with wildfire, right? Because with flood, if you elevate a home, that home is now safer. And it's going to have less water. It doesn't matter what people do, what the homes around it do. But that's exactly right. With wildfire, you need the individual structure to be built in a fire-safe way, the buffer around the home to be fire-safe, and all the neighbors to have done it too. And then also, if we're talking about more wildland areas in the wildland urban interface, also for that forest to be managed well, right? And so you have all these scales where you need those risk reduction investments to be happening. And that's just harder to align, but more important than ever. But it really takes all of those scales to see the true loss reduction where I think you'd start seeing, you know, real changes in the insurance, in the insurance availability and pricing. So I think that's where we need to go. And I think we talked about pre-disaster, get to the post-disaster thing. Now would also be an opportunity in the post-fire context to think about how you create those fire-safe communities and make sure that we don't miss opportunities to make people safer, to make communities better able to withstand our climate future. Going forward, yeah. Yeah, and it's just, I think, the hypothetical, and I'm just throwing this out. Here's a 20-home community. And 40% of them did everything possible to fireproof their homes in that the rest of the neighborhood burns down. Even those homes have survived, they're there. Wildfire has unique impacts, and those people aren't going to have normal lives as the rest of their neighborhood burned down. They're going to be exposed to toxic chemicals. So even though their homes didn't burn down, it still might not really be able to live there. Yeah, that's a really good point. And I think some of the health issues around wildfire are really scary and I'm more tender, right? Which is that what you talked about, but also just the issues with the smoke and everything as well, too. So it really is a community scale issue. I want to talk about the insurance industry. And we've talked about it a little bit. And I've done this in previous episodes with you, and I find myself being sympathetic to insurance companies, and I feel like someone needs to come up and slap me once in a while. What are you thinking, Doug? But I'm looking, why should they have to ensure these areas? And of course, we're seeing them pull out of states. There's some shady lobbying that they do for individual regulations and policies. But overall, I'm like, why should they have to ensure these groups? What's happening in California? What do you think next phase for an insurance industry is going to happen? Yeah, I think you hit on a really important tension, which is I think a bit of a disagreement in society about whether we think of insurance as a private market good or as social protection that everyone deserves. Because if we think of insurance as a private product, the firms offering it have to be profitable. And if they can't get a rate, come measure it with the risk, they can't accept losses. They'll go and solve it, right? We can't ask insurance companies to offer products at a loss. They can't exist that way. And yet, it provides this, as we were talking about earlier, there's a really important social function around recovery that's really necessary. And so I think how we square those two things is going to be a really live conversation for the next few years. And you can think of many different ways to do that. I mean, you can just looking at the different systems we have in place already. We have a federal program that's providing flood for a long time, not at risk-based rates to anyone who wants it. We have a different approach. This isn't a climate parable with terrorism where the federal government's acting more as a backstop or a re-insure. We have these individual state programs who all have slightly different requirements and structures. So when is the government going to step in and offer insurance people to people when the private sector doesn't? I think that's an important question. But I want to flag one other thing, which is there's also different models of doing insurance. So we tend to just think of your traditional big name insurance company, which is owned by investors and is a really large firm. But there's other models too. And a really interesting one that I've gotten increasingly intrigued by is a company called FM Global. They provide commercial insurance. It's not a residential option. But they center risk reduction first. And they work with their clients to do all the risk reduction necessary at their sites. And then they can offer them the lower cost insurance because they've done all the risk reduction. But interestingly, they're a mutual company. So it's a different form of ownership where the policyholders own the company. And then you can more align and they often put their profits back into resilience among their policyholders. So there's models like that. And there's also interesting models around captives, which are similarly insurance setup for a particular firm or a particular group to just provide them insurance. And again, they can kind of hold on to some of the earnings and invest them more strategically in risk reduction. So I think there's also different ownership models and I'll throw out another one. We have like different types of pools. And you could pool different local governments together. For example, as a conversation I've seen emerging. So I think there's lots of new models that are exciting to think about. And which ones are going to be fit for purpose for different risks? I think it's still a little unclear. You shared an article you wrote with me about California and some of the insurance issues that are coming up. And a lot of charts were into it. And I'll have that in my show notes. It really was fantastic. And I learned a lot. And I didn't realize how much California really does regulate the insurance industry. And in good ways, in some ways that probably encourage bad behavior, even though they they're trying to do the right thing by the public good. It creates these other issues. And I think of the government. It gets into ensuring homes and in the big way you hit there's fair, there's citizens in Florida. Has there been talk of there's communities that are in at risk areas, but they've been there for a long time. And to me, that seems like a good spot for government to come in and offer insurance and where the private sector is like, all right, we shouldn't want to be there. It's just too expensive. And that they're available for areas that maybe new construction, new areas that hopefully aren't in at risk areas. But have you seen that? Where it's just that they're acknowledging that we have people living here and we're going to step in and ensure those groups. I haven't seen it yet, but I think it's a really interesting idea to explore, which is to start conditioning future insurance availability on safe climate aware construction, which is to say that we treat existing building stock different than we do future building stock, so that we don't perversely incentivize continuing to build in ways that are not aligned with the risks that we face now and are going to face over the next decades over the life of a structure. And so I think thinking through that would be, I think policies sort of like you're suggesting, where you do something different for existing construction from new construction is a really useful idea and one to think about. It's come up in the flood insurance program FEMA had proposed some potential reforms, and I think this was one of them, which was like saying new construction in the highest flood risk areas isn't going to be eligible for insurance, because that's really too high of an area. And so, and if you know that going in, then you're only going to develop it. If you can really handle that risk totally on your own, because you know you're not going to have that available to you. Yeah, California is such an odd state. They really regulate in a good way in some areas, but they still allow development in at risk areas. And we have those maps. We know this isn't rocket science to say, wow, this is from a wildfire risk. If you develop in the state of California, and so these local communities allow that. And so it seems like the insurance companies would be in a good position to say, the more you allow development in these at risk areas, then give them leverage when it comes to ways that they provide coverage or how much they could charge. And I can't believe, again, that I'm trying to navigate about half of the insurance industries, but it's just I'm interested in not developing in at risk areas. And I talk about Florida a lot. I mean, you and I did a whole episode around Florida about this, but it's just, it seems like such insanity and these companies could be such a driver of making sure people don't develop in those areas. Yeah, I think that's exactly a place where the insurance sector should really be leaning in more, which is helping state and local policy makers better understand the risk and where the risk is going in the future so that the exactly like you said, we're not putting in place structures and places where the risk is just getting too high. That's not good for anyone. That's not good for the people who end up living there, right? Who then suffer all the losses. It's not good for the economics and the community when they have to deal with the recovery. And so being smarter about all of that going forward. And I think the insurance companies helping with that is really important. I agree with you. I think the insurance companies should be some of the biggest advocates of managed retreat. They should have entire teams lobbying around these things. I know that's not happening anytime soon, but it would be such a long-term way of being more responsible to areas that they would be required to ensure. Yeah, we're just not seeing enough communication from insurers or anyone really about how risk changes over time to guide those initial development decisions to guide location choice. I mean, you get this year's premium, but they're not saying to you, oh, but hey, this is risk going up. And so your insurance premium is going to grow year on year on year on year. And are you really going to be able to afford that increasing trajectory? And instead, people just get shocked when the premium goes way up or when insurers leave instead of being able to think more ahead of time. So I think greater information on how climate risk is changing and more discussion around it. Yeah, it's really, really important. And in a previous episode, which was very popular, House of Cards, where we talked about Florida and their insurance market, which again, it's bakers and spy home state. And there's these little smaller insurance companies that are risen. And I call them boutique insurers, maybe even referred to them that way. It's just like reshuffling chairs on the Titanic with those smaller companies. And they're there and they provide this sort of band-aid approach. Oh, you have insurance, but the big storm that comes to it, they all get wiped out. Then a new slate of them come along. And if you've alluded to this or even mentioning the state of California, or the National Flood Insurance Program, are we headed for a national level insurance program in the age of climate change? Is there even room for private insurers if we're not really going to be responsible with our planning on the ground? Yeah, you know, it's sort of this big question about how insurable are these areas long term? And I definitely have the opinion that if we don't do more climate adaptation at a much faster and deeper scale, we are going to be creating regions that become essentially uninsurable by which I mean private companies can't offer the coverage at a price point that people can afford anymore, which is essentially them the private markets dried up. You've already essentially seen that happen in like very Southern Louisiana and parts of Southern Florida. We're really the only option in those locations is the state program. And so everyone's in Louisiana citizens or Florida citizens in those places. And if we don't do that adaptation work and the risks start expanding and we start seeing those areas where there really is not a lot of private market viability expand, the question is how much of that risk moves into the public sector? How do we socialize that? Is that spread on all taxpayers, on all policy holders? As we talked about in Florida and is also true in California, when those state programs going to deficit, they assess all the policy holders in the state. So we're spreading disaster costs, you know, over future policy holders and from low risk to high risk people. So as you mentioned at the beginning, this raises a lot of questions about sort of what we think is fair and equitable and who should pay the cost of disasters. But to come back to your specific question about a federal role, we have seen in the last couple years increasing discussion about whether there should be a federal program to provide protection against all natural hazards or against climate related parals, which could take a number of forms that could be expanding the NFIP to other parals. It could be adopting a program that's more like how we handle terrorism or is more like how France and Spain handle natural disasters, which is to say that the federal government provides a sort of backstop or re-insurance to the insurance companies. And in return, the insurance companies have to provide comprehensive protection against all the parals. So there's different ways this could be done. A proposal wasn't introduced in Congress to do this, but it didn't go anywhere. I doubt it's going to go anywhere over the next four years. But I do think it's going to be a topic that keeps resurfacing. I think that's where we're headed. And we already have a haphazard national insurance program anyway, because whenever there's a major national, I don't, I'm not supposed to call natural disaster, just extreme weather event, or that that's not to need event bread at WWF. She's always correct to me on that. Is there not natural wear? Yes. And so we already have it. So even Katrina, the government after the event comes in and there's all sorts of rebuilding. And in some ways, that's a de facto national insurance program. It's just a very sloppy, inefficient, it's not a preventative program, but it's still there. And so we're doing that. And I guess I'm not sure if I don't know enough to say, would we benefit from the national insurance program? But if we did, I would hope that there's some major Supreme Court case that we have it, but you cannot ensure places that are at risk after the fact. Of course, people that are already living in areas, but if you're developing in at risk areas, you should not be eligible for it. And there's got to be some backing to that, but can't always be we're going to come save the day. And we're just how we get there. But we need all that put into place. Yeah, I also think that if we're going to be kind of the language I use as socializing risk to some extent, whether, you know, whatever form that takes, but kind of putting a lot of those onto the public sector, it needs to be conditioned upon risk reduction requirements and demands. We can't, otherwise, we're just going to keep growing losses. And that's not economically sustainable. That hurts American households and communities, right? It's not a path that I think we want going forward. We need to figure out a model where we focus on the resilience and the climate adaptation first so that we have communities where households can be saved and the economies can continue to thrive. It's sometimes difficult these days, but I think it's important to focus on that vision of a kind of future we want to kind of keep us focused on how we can get there together. And just the acknowledging reality of the next four years, we're probably not going to get a lot of that kind of macro-responsible thinking on these areas. So hopefully, there'll be a lot of innovative thinking going on in the private sector and nonprofits and just be primed and ready to do it when we have a situation where the federal government can do that. But who knows? Maybe we'll be surprised, but we both understand things will be taking a step back. I was going to say, and we also just saw, you know, in his first days in office, Trump rescinded the federal flood risk management standard, which he did 10 days before Hurricane Harvey and then the Biden administration put it back and then he just took it away again and that really counterproductive because as we just talked about when you're rebuilding with federal dollars, you want to make sure you're building safer. And so taking away standards that would account for increasing flood risk would be setting us back and driving up losses. So it's unfortunate. We did a predictions episode and you had some great stuff there, but I want you to predict what's going to happen to an insurance in California. Oh, dear, that's a hard one, Doug. That's why I got the pro this expert. I think, you know, in the short term, there's going to be long and difficult recoveries from everyone dealing with the fires in LA. That's how this goes and it's going to be rough, but I don't think we're going to see insurance companies not able to make their obligations. I think we are going to see the fair plan go into assessments and I'm hoping that this becomes an opportunity to have a conversation about how we create that climate-focused insurance of the future that drives all the things we just talked about on this episode, how we make it a part of creating resilient communities. And that's going to require some changes to the fair plan. I think it's going to require things like insurance companies doing more to support their policyholders in resilient rebuilding, which means giving them extra money to build resiliently, helping them understand what to do, connecting them to the workforce who can do it. So that would be my optimistic hope is that we can lean into some of those important challenges and come out better on the other side. And I think California's the place to do it. Listen, they're thinking really hard and carefully and have so many wonderful leaders in the state on this space. I want to try to bet on optimism when that seems a hard thing to do right now. California is only increasingly going to be a leader in all these things as the federal government shuts down. So California, I know I have a lot of listeners there, do your thing. We're doubting on you. Carefully the last question, if you could recommend one person that come on the podcast, who would it be? Well, if you want to talk more about wildfire in California, you probably don't, but if you do, we just I do sure I do. Nancy Watkins is a great voice and leader on these issues in California. And she's someone I always listen to when she starts sharing her expertise on it. Fantastic. Carolyn, congrats again on the new insurance for good organization. And I bet you guys are going to just be leaders in the space for years and years to come. I'm excited that you're out there doing that. And thanks again for coming on the podcast. Thank you, Doug. Thanks for having me. Okay, adapters. That is a wrap. Thanks to Carolyn for joining me and sharing her insights on the involving role of insurance and addressing climate risks from wildfires in California to the broader challenges of a changing climate. Carolyn highlighted how the industry can be a force for resilience and adaptation. It's obvious the sector isn't doing enough, but in these early days of adaptation, they can be a private sector leader in driving consequential change in how we plan communities in the face of climate change. The wildfires and California work tragic and will likely drive massive changes in the industry in the years to come. Hopefully some thoughtful leaders and planners in California and elsewhere will help with this transition to safer communities that have access to adequate property insurance. If you'd like to dive deeper into Carolyn's work and learn more about how insurance is adapting to the climate crisis, check out the links in the episode notes. You heard Carolyn. She encouraged you guys to reach out and work with her and her new group. And as always, thank you for listening to America Daps. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe. Leave a review on Apple podcasts and share it with others passionate about building or climate resilient future. Okay, before I let you go, imagine showcasing your organization success to a vast audience of climate and adaptation leaders through America Daps. One of the most respected podcasts in the field by sponsoring an episode your organization can tell its adaptation story, share its message and connect with an influential engaged audience. Go beyond traditional tools like webinars or white papers. Let's create a dynamic podcast episode that celebrates your work. Together, we'll identify the right voices to highlight your achievements and craft a compelling narrative that resonates with stakeholders, funders and board members while leaving a lasting impression. Podcasts have an unmatched staying power, continuing to inform and inspire listeners long after they air. I've partnered with leading organizations like Batel, NRDC, World Wildlife Fund, UCLA, Harvard University, your organization could be next, ready to amplify your mission, ready to be a leading voice in the adaptation sector. Reach out and email me at [email protected] and we'll explore how podcast storytelling can elevate your impact. Okay, adapters, keep up the great work. I'll see you next time.