Hello  everyone.  My  name  is  Raven  Davis. I'm  the  research  scientist  in data  analytics  here  at  the  library. Thank  you  for  joining  us  here  today  at the  Scholars  Event  Theater  of the  Price  Gilbert  Memorial  Library. This  event  is  a  part  of  Georgia  Tech Library's  initiative  to  highlight research  that  makes  data accessible  and  meaningful  to  the  public. And  it's  made  possible  with  the  support  from the  Price  Gilbert  Junior  Charitable  Fund. I'm  extremely  excited  to  welcome Professor  Brian  Stone  Junior  today. Dr.  Stone  is  a  professor  in the  School  of  City  and  Regional  Planning here  at  Georgia  Tech, where  he  teaches  urban  environmental  planning  and  design. Dr.  Stone's  program  of  research  is  focused  on urban  scale  drivers  of climate  change  and  is supported  by  the  National  Science  Foundation, US  Centers  for  Disease  Control  and  Prevention, and  the  US  Environmental  Protection  Agency. Dr.  Stone  is  the  director  of the  Urban  Climate  Lab  here  at  Tech, and  the  author  of  the  forthcoming  book, Radical  Adaptation, Transforming  Cities  for  a  Climate  Changed  World, which  will  be  available  through Cambridge  University  Press. This  year,  Dr.  Stone  holds  degrees  in environmental  management  and  planning from  Duke  University  as  well  as  from  Tech. You  may  have  come  across  his  work  in the  Atlanta  Journal  Constitution this  summer  in  the  article, Heat  Risk  is  Growing. These  are  Atlanta's  most  vulnerable  neighborhoods. Or  more  recently,  in the  New  York  Times  article  from  this  past  September, how  to  cool  down  a  city. With  that,  I  welcome  Professor  Brian  Stone  Junior. Thank  you  so  much. Thanks  everybody  for  being  here  and  making  time  on a  beautiful  day  to  be  inside  and  talk about  a  topic  that  may  not  be relaxing  if  you  are one  of  my  students  that  I  required  to  be  here. Thank  you  for.  I  also  have, it  was  mentioned  that  I  was  here, my  graduate  work,  my doctoral  work  and  my  doctoral  advisor  is  here. This  is  very  stressful  to  once again  have  to  confront  his  questions. Okay,  good. I  want  to  focus  on  three  propositions today  in  the  time  we  have. The  first  is  the  risk  of  extreme  heat  is  different  than other  kinds  of  extreme  climate related  weather  like  hurricane. Hurricane  is  a  good  example. We  cannot  understand  that  heat  risk  without  understanding health  risk  in  cities  can  change  their  own  weather. I  guess  that's  the  good  news  and  what  I  had  to  say  today. First  proposition,  heat  risk is  different  than  hurricane  risk. Always  envious  of  my  other  climate  colleagues who  focus  on  things  like  hurricanes because  they  get  much  better  photos, much  better  images  than  we  get  with  heat. There's  no  analogous  image  for  heat  risk. Heat,  Extreme  heat  events  don't cause  the  scale  of  property  damage. The  way  we  conceptualize, the  way  we  understand  that  level  of  risk  is  different. We  tend  to  dramatically  underestimate  that  risk. Obviously,  obviously,  it  could  be  several, this  hurricane  from  just  about  a  year  ago  in  Florida. I  want  to  highlight  heat  is  unique, why  heat  is  different  than other  kinds  of  climate  stressors, and  then  why  are  responses  to  heat, thinking  about  what  we  can  do  also  need  to  be  different? The  principal  difference  is just  heat  is  much  more  deadly. And  this  is  not  always  understood  the  extent  to  which heat  related  fatalities  in  the  US  are  so  much greater  year  over  year than  other  kinds  of  extreme  weather. This  is  showing  over  a  period  of  years  2015,  2019, the  number  of  deaths  in  the  United  States  on average  from  different  kinds  of  extreme  weather, tornadoes,  hurricanes,  and  extreme  heat. 2022  was  actually  a  pretty  anomalous  year for  hurricane  risk  due  to  N, and  so  we  had  about  300  deaths, that  is  just  many  orders  of  magnitude lower  than  our  best  estimates from  heat  risk  in  the  United  States. Every  year,  about  12,000 These  are  different  kinds  of  fatalities. They're  often  masked  by  other  conditions. Heat  is  a  compounding  factor for  respiratory  disease, cardiovascular  disease,  diabetes. Heat  is  one  of  several  factors, but  can  be  usually  the  triggering  factor  in  those  deaths. To  the  best  we  can  tell, heat  is  just  a  much  more  pronounced  risk than  other  forms  of  extreme  weather. Even  though  we  don't  have  the  dramatic  photographs  to show  that  extreme  heat  is  amplified, has  a  relationship  with  urban infrastructure,  the  built  environment. And  critical  infrastructure  in  cities. That's  just  fundamentally  different  than  hurricanes. When  hurricanes  make  landfall, whether  they're  in  a  city  or  not, that  tends  to  de,  energize  the  storm. A  heat  wave  is  the  opposite. Cities  amplify  heat  waves,  sometimes  quite  substantially. The  relationship  between  cities where  the  greatest  population  risk is  and  the  stressor  of  heat  is quite  different  than  other  kinds  of  extreme  weather. The  other  infrastructure  association here  that's  critical  is  electricity. We're  seeing  more  and  more  blackouts across  the  United  States, was  what  the  bar  graph  shows  here. This  increase  more  than  a doubling  in  a  short  period  of  time  in major  blackout  events  anywhere  in the  United  States  is  mostly increasing  in  the  summer  months. It's  mostly  a  warm  season  phenomenon. It  is  due  to  greater  stress  from  temperature  itself, greater  reliance  on  the  grid  for  air  conditioning. And  then  of  course,  it  overlays  with hurricane  season  and  the  other  forms of  climate  stress  that  are  happening. As  we  see,  more  blackouts  raises questions  about  how  heat  risk  is further  amplified  by  those  blackouts. This  was  a  study  where  we  looked  at  Atlanta, Phoenix  in  Detroit,  destroying  Atlanta,  and  Phoenix  here. The  number  of  emergency  department  visits also  fatalities, which  I  don't  show  here,  associated  with a  five  day  heat  wave,  a  historical  heat  wave. These  were  actual  heat  waves  in  both  in  all  three  cities. Then  how  many  emergency department  visits  we  think  we  would  get if  we  had  lost  power  during that  historical  heat  wave  for  five  days. What  we  see  here  is  a  very  modest  number that  can  easily  be  absorbed  and managed  by  the  emergency  response  system, and  then  a  much  greater  number  if  we  lose  power. It's  not  surprising.  We  knew  that  would  be  the  outcome, but  we  didn't  know  exactly  what the  magnitude  of  the  effect  would  be. In  Atlanta,  this  is  reporting ED  visits  per  100,000  population, so  about  a  half  million  in  the  city  in  Atlanta, so  that's  about  15,000  people  would  need  to  go  to the  hospital  if  we  have  what  is  an  increasing  phenomenon, which  is  a  blackout  during  hot  weather. And  we  just  don't  have  enough  ED  beds, we  don't  have  enough  hospital  beds  in  Atlanta  for  that. That  would  really  put  pressure  on  the  system. And  then  Phoenix  is  of  course, in  its  own  category. If  Phoenix  had  this  event, it's  a  low  probability  event  for  sure, but  the  risk  is  rising  over  time. If  Phoenix  had  this  event, that  would  be  more  than  half  of the  population  might  need  to  go  to the  the  magnitude  of  risk presented  by  heat  due  to its  association  with  infrastructure  is  just  greater than  other  forms  of  climate  related  weather. Another  distinguishing  feature  is  we  have a  physiological  threshold  With  heat  that  we just  don't  have  with  other  forms  of  extreme  weather. We  have  an  absolute  limit  for what  the  human  body  can  tolerate. This  graphic  is  showing bold  temperatures  across  the  world. The  high  wet,  bold  temperatures. This  is  a  measure,  it's  like  a  heat  index. It's  a  combination  of  humidity  and  temperature. A  heat  index  is  designed  to measure  how  humidity  makes  it  feel  hotter. It's  a  feels  like  temperature. Wet  bulb  is  a  little  different. Wet  bulb  is  basically, it's  calibrated  to  our  ability to  cool  ourselves  by  sweating. Sweating  is  our  principal  physiological  response  to  heat. Once  we  encounter  temperatures  that  are  higher  than our  core  body  temperature  of  98.6 are  elevated  because  of  physical  activity, the  combination  of  physical  activity  and heat,  we  start  to  sweat. To  cool  ourselves  down,  we  have to  circulate  water  within our  blood  to  provide  the  moisture  to  feed  that, and  that  evaporates  off  our  skin. When  we're  in  very  humid  environments, the  ability  to  evaporate  our  sweat  is  diminished. If  we  get  something  approaching  100%  humidity, we  can't  sweat  at  all,  and  that means  we  can't  cool  ourselves. And  we  know  for  sure that  our  core  body  temperature  will  start  to  rise. We  have  very  little  latitude  as  we  all  know,  right? We  know  the  temperature  that  keeps  us  off the  school  bus  and  it's  not  much  higher  than  98.6  Right. You  get  to  about  100,  just  a  couple  ticks  in  Fahrenheit. And  you're  not  going  to  school that  day,  you're  not  going  to  work. Maybe  we  don't  have  a  lot  of  latitude  to  play  with. Temperatures  are  usually  on  planet  Earth  lower, much  lower  than  our  core  body  temperature. As  it  gets  higher  and  more  commonly  higher, that  presents  a  real  challenge  to  us. This  is  really  measuring  at what  point  are  we  seeing  heat  and  humidity. In  combination  where  we  just  can't  sweat, even  the  most  able  bodied, young  fit  person  in  the  shade  cannot  sweat. Theoretically,  that  value  was 35  degrees  Celsius  or  95  degrees  Fahrenheit. What's  changing  is  no  city  has  ever  hit  95. What  you  see  here  are  the  highest  numbers  here, about  90,  again  very  different  than  the  90. We're  used  to  what  we're  used to  we  call  drive  ball  temperature. It's  just  a  different  metric. But  the  highest  values  you  see,  about  90. We  haven't  got  a  95  yet, and  we  hope  not  to. But  we  probably  will. But  what's  problematic  is  that this  isn't  based  on  human  health  data. More  recent  studies  have  brought in  young  university  volunteers. I  was  never  one  of  those  people, but  I  totally  admire  those  of  you  who  do  this. Come  in  and  submit  yourself  to  an  environmental  chamber. Just  walk  on  a  treadmill, Light  exercise,  they're  measuring  here, how  much  time  as  the  temperature  and humidity  is  being  increased  in  the  environmental  chamber. At  what  point  will the  core  body  temperature  increase  above  37, which  is  98.6  At  what  point  will a  young  fit  person  start  to  experience  hypothermia? What  they  found  here,  this  is  from a  number  of  study  participants, is  that  that  temperature  is 30-31  There's  about  87  degrees  Fahrenheit. Again,  wet  bulb  temperature, not  the  temperature  we're  used  to. But  87  degrees  is  much  closer  to  where  we  are  now. We  still  don't  have  any  US  cities  that  have  reached 87  degrees  that  we  have  measured  directly. When  we  get  there,  many  things  will  change. For  us,  the  viability  of many  municipal  services  won't  be  there. We  can't  safely  have  our  garbage  picked  up. We  can't  safely  do  outdoor  construction. I  mean,  obviously  we  can't exercise  and  have  athletics  outside. But  just  the  basic  functions  of  a  city  will  need  to, for  some  period  of  time,  be  suspended. And  that  is,  the  viability  here  in the  title  is  not  meant  to  be  hyperbole  viability. Here  we  are  getting  ever  closer  to  confronting  heat  and humidity  that  will  be unsafe  for  some  period of  the  day  or  some  period  of  the  summer. How  close  are  we  there? Climate  lab,  we  just  looked  at  this  last  summer, June,  July,  August  of  2023. In  many  cities,  this  was the  most  summer  as  we  expect  every  year. As  we  continue  on  the  trajectory  of  global  scale  warming, cities  get  hotter,  temperatures  get  more  extreme. The  list  you're  showing  you,  how  many  degrees  were  we  for the  maximum  wet  bulb  temperature from  this  87  Fahrenheit  threshold? Some  cities  were  pretty close  and  they're  not  necessarily  the  cities  we  expect. Cincinnati,  Kansas  City,  Chicago. These  are  cities  that  don't  experience the  most  intense  dry  bulb  temperature. That's  Phoenix,  right? That's  Las  Vegas.  These  are  cities  that experience  very  high  humidity  during  parts  of  the  year. In  combination  with  high  temperatures for  these  cities  are  very  close  to a  threshold  that  is  going  to  be  paralyzing  to some  extent  to  the  operations  of  the  city. How  long  might  it  be  until  we  hit  that  temperature, that  critical  temperature  we looked  at  the  last  five  years, just  a  five  year  trend based  on  the  average  year  of  a  year, change  in  the  maximum  wet,  bold  temperature. And  that  gives  us  a  loose  estimate. In  some  cities  it's  statistically significant,  not  in  all  cities. In  some  cities  there's  no  trend, but  in  most  of  these  cities  there  is  a  trend. And  we  can  see  that  if the  next  510  years  looks  like  the  last  five  years, these  cities  at  the  top, will  be  on  hitting temperatures  that  are  paralyzing  for  the  city. I  feel  very  safe  in  saying these  cities  are  not  prepared  for  it. Most  of  these  cities  don't  know  that they  have  this  proximity to  really  paralyzing  temperatures. Part  of  what  we  need  to  be  doing in  the  field  of  climate  adaptation, for  what  it  is,  is  starting  to  think  about  one, alerting  cities  to  this  risk, and  then  two,  thinking  through  how  to  respond. Because  this  is  a  threshold. The  95  threshold  might  be a  long  time  before  US  city  hits  that. Maybe  we'll  never  hit  it, but  87  we  will  definitely  hit. And  that's  for  young  healthy  people,  right? It's  lower  for  many  of  us. Atlanta's  not  on  here  because  it's  high. Bob  High  was  81  this  last  summer. That's  six  degrees  from  the  threshold, but  it's  really  about  the  trend,  right? Atlanta's  15  years,  if the  next  15  years  look  like  the  last  five, I  guess  there's  some  room  to  breathe  there. But  to  my  mind,  not  a  lot. Because  the  things  we  need  to  do to  adapt  to  this  level  of  heat  stress, take  time  for  sure.  Take  time. We've  been  working  with  Atlanta  to  think  about where  this  heat  risk  is  in  the  city  and  what  we  can  do and  how  effective  these  actions  might  be. Third  proposition,  oh,  something  jumped. Heat  exposure  does  not  equal  heat  risk  is  what  that should  say.  We  know  that. Heat  risk  is  driven  by  more  than just  the  temperature  or just  the  temperature  and  the  humidity. It  is  also  driven  by  the  health  of  the  individual, the  health  of  the  community. Those  who  are  older,  those  who  have preexisting  conditions  that  create  heat  sensitivity, are  going  to  experience  heat  illness  even  at temperatures  that  are  lower than  the  maximum  we  see  in  the  city. If  we've  been  working  with  the  city  to say  what  neighborhoods  are  most  at  risk, we  know  we  have  limited  resources. What  neighborhood  should  we  prioritize  to  invest  in? We  need  to  be  focusing  on  not  just  exposure, the  temperature,  but  also where  the  population  sensitivity  is  high,  okay? And  so  that's  the  second  dimension. The  third  here  is  adaptive  capacity. If  you  are  someone  who  has a  preexisting  condition  for  heat, you're  exposed  to  high  heat, you  can  adapt  by seeking  out  a  space  that's  air  conditioned,  right? And  so  if  you  don't  have  access  to regular  air  conditioning  in  hot  weather, then  you  are  more  vulnerable. So  we  need  to  be  accounting  for all  three  dimensions,  not  just  temperature. For  a  long  time  in  the  work  that  I  do, we  were  mapping  hot  spots  and  saying, hey,  you  need  to  go  work  on  the  airport. It's  really  hot  at  the  airport, Or  you  need  to  go  to  this  industrial  district. It's  really  hot,  but  nobody  lives  there. So  we  need  to  be  thinking  more  completely about  the  constituent  parts  of  heat  risk. Our  first  task  in working  with  the  city,  what  we've  done  here, we've  developed  an  approach to  essentially scoring  neighborhoods  based  on  their  heat  risk. Atlanta  is  really  the  first  large  city to  have  this  analysis  carried  out. One  of  the  challenges  is  for a  long  time  it's  still  true  in  terms  of  your  weather  app. Like  this  is  what  the  city  looks  like if  we  only  have  the  airport  weather  station. If  temperature  is  only  measured  in  one  location, then  it  doesn't  vary  around  the  city. We  can't  measure  disparities  and  exposure, which  we  know  to  be  quite  high. We  know  that  the  urban  heat  effect, which  I'll  talk  about  here  in  a  minute, can  really  create  significant  differences in  temperatures  around  the  city. Our  first  task  is  to  figure  out how  to  measure  temperature at  a  scale  that's  useful  to  us. We  do  that  with  an  urban  scale  climate  model. These  are  similar  to  the  global  climate  model, general  circulation  models,  in  the  sense  that they  are  driven  by  grid  cells. We  have  to  understand  a  lot  of the  physics  happening  within  those  grid  cells. We  need  to  know  the  physical  design  of  each  grid  cell. How  many  buildings,  how  many  trees, how  much  is  parking  lot. We  compile  that  data. Being  able  to  run  this  model  at  this  scale is  something  we've  only  been  able  to do  really  for  a  couple  of  years. 100  meters  is  like  one  downtown  city  block. It's  a  high  resolution  to  be  able to  estimate  temperature.  We  do  that. This  is  for  historical  summer. Hot  summer  in  Atlanta  is  2016. Until  this  summer,  it  was  the  hottest  summer. We  don't  actually  know  yet whether  this  summer  will  surpass  it. We  looked  at  every  hour  of the  day  for  every  day  of  that  hot  summer, ran  the  model  to  understand how  temperature  varied  across  the  city. Again,  the  first  time  we  can  see  this  is  air  temperature. It's  somewhat  similar  in  terms  of  the  map, looks  somewhat  similar  to a  surface  temperature  map  in  terms  of  the  resolution. But  air  temperature,  which  we  measure here  at  2  meters  taller  than  me, is  very  different  than  the  land  surface  temperature  where I  put  my  hand  on  the  asphalt  and  it  burns  my  hand. Air  temperature  makes  a  sick. Putting  my  hand  on  the  asphalt  burns  my  hand, but  it  doesn't  make  a  sick  often, it  depends  on  the  conditions  don't  align  spatially. We  really  can't  use  satellite  to  be  great, but  we  can't  use  satellites  to measure  with  any  confidence  where  exposure  is  high. We  can  zoom  in  and  see. Because  the  high  resolution,  the  neighborhood, the  neighborhood  scale,  downtown is  going  to  be  for  sure,  a  hot  spot. It's  going  to  be  where  exposure  is  high, the  commercial  spine  of  Midtown. We're  going  to  have  high  exposures. These  temperatures  again,  they're showing  you  the  full  average, 88  degrees  Fahrenheit,  where  you  see  the  red, the  darkest  red  cells. That  means  an  average  of 88  degrees  for  every  hour  of  the  summer, even  at  three  in  the  morning,  right? That's  hot.  That's  a  lot  of  hours  over  100. If  you  think  88  is  not  that  hot, remember  this  is  average  temperature for  the  whole  summer. This  is  essentially  what  we're using  to  understand  what  the  health  risk  is. We  can  look  at  a  single  day. This  is  July  27  was the  hottest  day  of  that  summer  in  2016. I  don't  know  if  you  remember  what you  were  doing.  The  temperatures  are  higher. We  clearly  have  now  grid cells  with  temperatures  in  excess  of  100, the  heat  island,  the  range  of  temperatures  is  wider. It's  about  10:12  degrees. This  is  a  very  dense  dataset  we  can  use. Importantly,  we  use  it  to  drive  a  health  impact  model. We  have  reliable  data, really,  for  every  large  city  in  the  United  States, that  shows  us  the  association between  what  we  call  all  cause  mortality, which  is  a  technical  way  of saying  everybody  who  died  that  day, the  number  of  deaths  that  day, and  temperature,  we  know  this  is  association. When  temperature  goes  up, the  number  of  people  who  died  goes  up. Did  they  die  from  heat  stroke? We  usually  don't  know  Did  they  die? Because  we  know  there's more  violent  crime  when  it's  hot  maybe. Did  they  die  because  they got  dizzy,  fell  down  the  stairs? I'm  not  trying  to  be  more,  but  I'm  just trying  to  explain  that  we  don't  really know  specifically  how  many  people are  dying  from  heat  stroke, but  we  know  if  temperature  goes  up  or temperature  goes  down  from  a  comfort  level, which  here  is  about  77  degrees. Anything  above  77,  we start  to  see  an  increase  in  the  relative  risk. That  means  the  risk  of  dying, anything  lower  will  give  very  cold  weather, people  die  from  extreme  temperatures  in  both  directions. We  can  then  use  this  function  we  have, which  is  specific  to  Atlanta  and  its  population and  hospitalization  and  death  data,  mortality  data. Then  we  can  look  at  how  temperature  varies, neighborhood  and  neighborhood  Baseline  mortality, the  number  of  people  dying varies,  neighborhood  and  neighborhood. Because  population  sensitivity  varies, one  neighborhood  has  an  older  population or  people  dying  in  that  neighborhood  day  every  day. This  is  a  way  to  capture both  exposure  and  population  sensitivity  in  one  measure. To  get  a  sense,  if  we  compare  this, we've  got  heat  related  mortality  here  per  neighborhood, per  100,000  There's  not  100,000  units  neighborhood. We've  inflated  the  numbers. But  this  is  showing  the  distribution of  heat  related  deaths,  neighborhood  by  neighborhood. And  it  doesn't  match  up  spatially particularly  well  with  exposure. Measuring  hot  spots  alone, measuring  where  it's  hot  alone  is  not  sufficient. The  pattern  of  where  we  need  to  intervene  is  different. Downtown  is  not  the  greatest  risk for  heat  related  illness. It's  more  likely  to  be  found  in  English  Avenue or  these  other  west  side  neighborhoods  that  we  see  here, Castleberry  Hill,  in  the  darkest  hue  of  red. That's  getting  us  most  of  the  way  to this  three  dimensions  of  heat  vulnerability. We  also  need  to  know  about  adaptive  capacity, the  statistical  functions  we  use. Do  not  know  whether individuals  have  air  conditioning  in  their  home. It's  based  entirely  on  outdoor  temperatures. We  also  need  to  be  aware  of  indoor  temperatures. We  develop  an  additional  measure  of  heat  risk, which  is  adapted  capacity, which  is  responsive  to  this  pattern. And  what  we're  seeing  here  is  parcel  data. This  is  an  estimate  of  indoor  heat  index, the  temperature  inside  the  home, temperature  and  humidity  inside  the  home  on a  hot  day  in  near  west  sides  Atlanta  neighborhoods, this  is  not  during  a  blackout, this  is  just  on  a  hot  day. On  a  hot  day,  there  are  many, many  households  here  where it's  unsafe  to  be  in  the  house. We  know  that's  true  because  either  there's  not air  conditioning  or  they're not  using  the  air  conditioning  they  have. Okay.  And  some  people  have  air  conditioning. Don't  use  it,  it's  too  expensive. It's  just  the  nature  of energy  insecurity  is  there's a  real  cost  associated  with  that. We  use  the  data  we  have  on where  central  air  conditioning  is  found  around  Atlanta. It's  not  a  perfect  dataset, but  it  seems  to  be  pretty reliable  at  the  neighborhood  level, Georgia  Tech,  where  we  are  98  to  100% It's  really  100%  If  you're  in a  dorm  room  and  you  don't  have  air  conditioning, raise  your  hand  like  you  all  have  air  conditioning. Probably  none  of  you  are  in  dorm  rooms. I  think  you're  all  guys,  but not  true  down  at  Atlanta  University. I  don't  know  if  that's  the  campus  or the  neighborhood,  they're  interwoven, but  68%  AC  prevalence  is  very low  in  a  city  like  ours with  extreme  heat  and  extreme  humidity. That's  low  adaptive  capacity. So  we  want  to  measure  both  of  those to  understand  total  heat  vulnerability. And  this  graphic  shows our  measure  of  total  heat  vulnerability, which  says  we  have  a  health  score which  is  based  on  exposure  and  sensitivity, basically  how  many  people  we  think  are  getting ill  in  a  neighborhood  over  the  course  of  the  summer. That's  half  of  the  score. And  then  the  other  half  of  the  score  is adaptive  capacity  because  we  think  it's  equally important  to  your  exposure  to  outdoor  temperatures. Basically  capturing  both  your  exposure to  outdoor  and  indoor  temperatures. This  is  not  all  neighborhoods. We  have  248  neighborhood  in  Atlanta. But  this  is  assigning  a  score  in  two  parts. If  you  have  a high  rate  population  rate  of  heat  mortality, we  estimate  like  English  Avenue. We  just  score  this  in  quantiles,  five  bins. If  you  have  high  heat  mortality, you're  going  to  get  a  four  or  five. If  you  have  low  adaptive  capacity, low  AC  prevalence,  you're  going  to  get  a  four  or  five. The  combination  gets  you  up  to  89  or  ten. Those  are  the  most  vulnerable  neighborhoods. And  again,  it  looks  different  than  the  heat  exposure  map. This  is  a  map  that is  unsatisfying  because  of  these  labels. But  I  blame  the  city  for  having  all  these  neighborhoods. I  don't  blame  my  map  making  skills, but  what  we  see  here  is  again, a  map  that  no  other  cities  really  have, which  is  showing  heat  risk concentrated  in  Atlanta's  case, to  the  west  and  the  south. And  of  course,  overlays  as  we expect  with  a  lot  of our  historically  marginalized  communities, these  communities  are  experiencing higher  exposures  because  we  have  denuded  infrastructure. In  some  cases,  fewer  parks, less  tree  canopy, more  surface  parking  lots  and  their  commercial  areas. Higher  exposures  in  these  areas, lower  baseline  health  for  all  the  reasons  we  can  imagine, and  low  adapt  to  capacity. We  find  all  three  of  these  dimensions  of heat  vulnerability  in  the  same  areas. Okay,  we  can  map  heat  risk  in, I  think,  a  robust  way. We  can  target  intervention  strategies for  heat  adaptation,  climate  adaptation. We  also  looked  at  stormwater  risk. I'll  show  you  a  map  of  that  in  a  few  minutes. We  can  measurably  change  those  outcomes. We  can  measurably  change  those  outcomes. We  can  do  it  at  the  city  scale. We  don't  need  the  IPCC. I'm  a  big  fan  of  the  IPCC, but  we  don't  need  a  global  agreement  to  do  it  like  we are  empowered  at  the  city  scale  to  do  this. Third  proposition,  cities  have  changed the  weather.  We  can  change  it  again. Cities  have  created  their  own  heat  islands. This  is  a  graphic  day who  just  finished  up  a  doctorate last  year  and  really  useful  graphic  here. These  four  drivers  of  the  urban  heat  island. We  lose  tree  canopy  in  cities. If  it's  a  region  of  the  country where  you  naturally  have  trees, we  lose  evaporate  transpiration and  shading.  It  heats  up  the  city. We  put  in  a  lot  of  impervious  cover, particularly  darkly  hued  asphalt  asphalt  roofing. It  heats  up  the  city.  We  have these  urban  canyons,  these  tall  buildings. They  trap  the  outgoing  radiation. The  outgoing  heat  in  the  form  of radiation,  heats  up  the  city. And  then  we  have  a  tremendous  amount of  energy  consumption  in  cities. We  have  all  those  greenhouse  gases driving  the  greenhouse  effect, but  we  also  have  a  tremendous  amount  of  waste  heat. When  we  cool  down  space  in  the  library, we're  mechanically  removing  heat  and  releasing it  to  the  outdoor  environment  and  that  heats  up  the  city. Not  just  this  library, I  won't  blame  the  library, but  all  the  buildings, all  the  uses  of  electricity. It  really  adds  up  in  cities  to  measurable  heat  island, we  can  work  against  that  this  summer. Endorsed  a  goal  of 50%  canopy  cover  for the  city.  It's  certainly  within  reach. We're  in  the  mid  to  high  '40s, moving  down  as  far  as  we  can  tell, but  mid  to  high  '40s. And  that's  a  very  fortunate  legacy  canopy to  have  in  the  city. It  does  a  lot  for  us.  We  don't  want  to  lose  more  of  it. Lots  of  debates  about  the  tree  ordinance, we  use  this  goal  as  a  goal for  one  of  the  scenarios  we  did. The  nice  thing  about  a  climate  model is  we  can  go  back  into  the  model  and  say, well,  what  if  we  had  more  trees  here? What  if  we  had  more  reflective  roofs  here? How  much  would  that  cool  down  the  air? How  much  would  that  reduce the  number  of  people  getting  sick? That's  a  key  part  of  our  exercise. We  looked  at  several  canopy  standards, but  this  is  a  central  one  because it's  been  endorsed  by  the  City  Council. When  we  apply  it,  you  see  your  current  conditions, the  map  I've  already  shown, and  then  50%  tree  canopy  cover  by  neighborhood. We  applied  at  the  neighborhood  scale  city  council. Didn't  necessarily  say  to  do  that, but  they  didn't,  they  didn't  really  operationalize  it. So  we  did  we  don't  think  it's  okay  to  have 70%  tree  canopy  cover  in  Buckhead  and  20%  in  Bind  City. We're  suggesting  we  should have  this  in  every  neighborhood. It  doesn't  literally  mean  50%  of the  neighborhood  is  covered  with  trees. It  means  that  50%  in  the  way  we  apply  it, of  the  plantable  ******  have  trees. So  we  can  plant  trees  over  streets. We  can  have  streets,  shaded  parking  lots. We,  we  could,  but  we  usually don't  put  trees  on  buildings, so  we  assume  we  don't  put  them  on  buildings. And  we  don't  put  them  in  the  middle  of  water  bodies. If  you  pull  out  the  buildings  in  the  water  bodies, what  remains  50%  of  that  can  be  canopy  can  be  expensive, but  we  can  definitely  do  it. We  have  the  technology  to  do  it and  so  that's  the  standard  we've  applied. When  we  do  that,  we  see  pretty  remarkable  cooling. Again,  this  is  for  the  whole  summer. English  Avenue,  one  of the  most  vulnerable  neighborhood  I  showed  you  before  in the  graphic,  is  cooled  dramatically. By  doing  that,  by  going from  30%  I  forget  the  actual  number. Somewhere  around  there,  30  to  50%  can  it  be  covered? That  ends  up  being  thousands  of  trees. Within  our  capacity  to  do  totally  within our  budget  to  do  pretty  dramatic  impact. It  translates  into  the  health  impact  as  well. And  we  look  at  a  range  of  standards. We're  not  just  limited  to  tree  canopy. We  can  do  reflective  materials. White  roofs  reflect  away  incoming  solar  radiation. They  cool  down  the  building.  That  reduces energy  consumption  in  the  summer. It  reduces  greenhouse  emissions.  That's  great. That's  critical.  It  reduces the  ambient  temperature  as  well  around  the  building. If  we  do  this  in  parts  of  the  city, particularly  downtown  by  the  World  Congress  Center, we  have  acres  and  acres  of  rooftop,  right? Not  all  cool  roofing,  astounding. If  we  do  that,  we  can  see  we  can  measurably  cool. Again,  these  are  available  technologies. The  cost  premium  usually  pays  for itself  with  the  cool  roof  over  a  period  of  years. These  are  well  within  our  reach. It's  a  very  busy  graphic  here. These  are  all  our  scenarios. I  didn't  walk  you  through  all  the  slides  because  it's more  than  we  won't  have  time  for  that  interested  in. But  what  we're  showing  here  is  how  mortality changed  in  response  to  these  scenarios. The  scenarios  are  tree  loss, we  assume  a  10%  loss  in  tree  cana  because  that's the  trajectory  moving  forward,  business  as  usual. That's  that  red  bar,  we're seeing  an  increase  in  mortality,  right? So  we  cut  down  more  trees, we're  going  to  see  more  heat  related  deaths. Stormwater  greening,  this  is  like  bioswales,  green  roofs. 10%  increase  in  this. It's  a  modest  strategy. Street  trees,  if  all  streets  except  for  like  interstates, had  50%  tree  canopy  cover, totally  within  reach,  can  completely  do  that. We  have  a  lot  of  streets  already  do  that  around  the  city. The  40,  50,  60, that's  green  at  the  neighborhood  level, 40%  50%  60%  Like  the  50%  map  I  showed, the  cool  roofing,  The  white  then all  is  a  combination  of cool  roofing  and  the  60%  tree  canopy. The  most  aggressive  policy  and  so  what  we  see  here is  in  the  best  case  is  40, 50%  reduction  in  heat  mortality  by  neighborhood, by  strategies  that  are  totally  within  reach, totally  within  our  budget. If  we  want  to  be  flexible  about  our  budget  and could  be  implemented  on  a  15  year  timescale, could  measurably  make  a  difference on  a  15  year  times  scale. I  mean,  this  is  wonderful  news for  Atlanta  if  we  want  to  do  it, if  we  want  to  take  it  seriously. And  that,  of  course,  is  the  challenge  is, will  we  take  this  seriously  so  we  can  look  citywide? Just  to  give  you  a  general  sense  of  the  economics  here, I  need  to,  I'm  off  camera. Just  give  you  a  sense  of  the  overall  economics  here. The  greening  50  scenario that  has  been  endorsed  by  the  City  Council, at  least  in  some  form  here, 350,000  trees,  we  would  need  another  350,000  trees. Might  sound  like  a  lot.  Really. Most  of  these  trees  to  be  effective  would  need  to be  near,  near  parking  lots. Those  are  more  expensive  to  plant. We  know  from  prior  studies there  have  been  many  what  that  cost. It  costs  a  lot  to  appropriately plant  a  street  tree  with  the  infrastructure  you need  so  the  tree  can  grow  and  be irrigated  and  be  healthy  and  be  replaced. When  it  does  die,  we  know  how  to  do  it.  It  costs  more. Cost  of  that  is  $100  per  year  forever,  right? It's  1,502,000  3,000  the year  you  plant  it  and  then you  maintain  it  year  over  year. The  year  over  year  cost  in  perpetuity, we  replace  the  trees  $100  per  tree  per  year. The  budget  ask  here  to the  city  if  we're  going  to  do  350,000 trees  is  $35,000,000  What does  that  look  like  to  our  budget? We  have  a  big  budget  item  in  Atlanta  to  deal  with our  storm  water  runoff  and  our  wastewater. Under  consent  decree,  we  spend  a  lot  on  that. It's  in  our  municipal  budget. We  raise  our  water  rates. This  represents  about  1%  of  that. If  we  can  spend 1%  on  trees  of  what  we're  spending  on  water, we  can  do  this,  but we  can't  just  put  them  in  Piedmont  Park. We  have  to  put  them  in  the  hardest  places  to  put  them. That's  the  proposition  here. But  it's  totally  within  our  reach. If  we  want  to  do  it,  we're able  to  look  not  just  the  city  level, but  neighborhood  by  neighborhood  that  I  mentioned. I  can  tell  you  in  English  Avenue exactly  how  many  trees  we  need  to  plant. I  can  hand  off  to  trees  Atlanta,  say  please  go  do  this. We've  tried  to  provide  all  of  the  data  that  would be  needed  to  pursue  these  goals. We  also,  because  we  were  adding lots  of  green  cover  to  the  climate  model, we  know  that  has  other  benefits. One  of  the  benefits  is  Stormwater. We  modeled  the  Stormwater  runoff. This  is  for  the  base  current  condition. This  is  without  the  improvements. But  we  can  pretty  easily  do this  and  show  you  neighborhood  by  neighborhood, what  the  storm  water  looks  like.  We  can  combine  this. I'm  not  going  to  show  you  much  of  stormwater  data, but  we  can  combine  this  to  come  up  with a  resilient  score  for  every  neighborhood  in  the  city. This  is  Vine  City.  We  can look  and  see  out  of  248  neighborhoods, how  Vine  City  ranks  in  terms  of  its  heat  risk  score. In  terms  of  its  flood  risk  score, which  we're  associating  with,  Stormwater. It  could  be  more  complex  than  that, but  if  we  score  every  neighborhood, and  then  we  combine  these  rankings, we  can  get  an  overall  resilience  score. What  we're  calling  it,  Vine  City, ends  up  being,  I  think,  number  three  on  that  list. Pittsburgh  is  number  one  on  that  list. The  same  familiar,  historically marginalized  communities where  climate  risk  is  most  acute. We  can  provide  this  ranking, the  score,  we  can  tell  you exactly  the  benefits  of  intervening. Basically,  all  the  information  we  could  hope  to have  to  drive  climate  adaptation, really  for  the  first  time,  really  for  the  first  time. This  is  something  that  Atlanta is  not  particularly  good  at  doing. Atlanta  is  the  only  major  city, doesn't  have  anything  that  looks like  a  climate  adaptation  plan. We  need  one  this  can  fuel  that. That's  good  news.  I  think  that's  a  positive  story. We  are  confronting  a  level  of  heat  risk  in Atlanta  and  other  cities  that we  hadn't  really  anticipated we  would  be  confronting  by  now. We  will  see  it  impact  our  lives, has  already  impacting  our  lives. I  want  to  conclude  with  a  final  proposition, and  that  is  at  the  end  of  the  era of  conventional  climate  adaptation  is  over. I  mentioned  that  Atlanta doesn't  have  a  climate  adaptation  plan. Many  cities  don't  have  a  climate  adaptation  plan. The  climate  adaptation  plans  that  we  do  have in  place  will  not  meet  this  challenge. We  are  just  not  thinking  of  the  magnitude  and the  extent  of  change  that  will  need  to come  about  to  manage  these  challenges. I'm  arguing  here  that  conventional  adaptation, using  the  same  environmental  management  tools  that we've  used  for  decades  to  deal  flooding, to  deal  with  solid  waste  removal. These  kinds  of  large  public  works, centralized  projects  will  not manage  this  level  of  stress  that  we're  seeing. Largely  because  we  just  delayed the  response  for  so  long,  right? We  had  the  scientific  certainty  we  needed 20  years  ago  to  start  to  adapt. And  we  were  holding  out  for that  mitigation  policy  that  was  going  to allow  us  to  reduce  our  emissions  and  we wouldn't  need  to  adapt.  That  didn't  happen. Now  we  need  to  adapt,  but  we  can't  do  it  conventionally. My  corollary  here  is  that the  age  of  radical  adaptation  is  upon  us. I'm  using  that  phrase  because  as  was  mentioned, I  have  a  book  coming out  that  talks  about  radical  adaptation. Obviously,  I  think  it's  here.  What  do  I  mean  by  that? Well,  I  don't  mean  that  we  need  to  have  revolution. I  don't  mean  that  we  need  to  have extremely  extreme  responses  to  adapt. Most  of  the  things  we  need  to  do  are  pretty  low  tech. But  we  need  to  move  beyond  our  conventional  approaches, both  strategies  and  policies. In  terms  of  how  we  manage  this, there  are  four  dimension, four  principles  of  radical  adaptation  that I  want  to  mention  before  I  wrap  up. The  first  is  adaptation. Infrastructure  must  be  reparative. The  analysis  I  walked  you  through  through  Atlanta leads  us  to  these  marginalized  west  side  neighborhoods. West  and  south  neighborhoods. Mostly,  that  wasn't  a  surprise. The  marginalization  itself  drives the  climate  of  vulnerability. We're  not  surprised  to  be  there  critically, though  these  are  the  places  we  must  start  first. Every  neighborhood  will  need  climate adaptive  infrastructure  in  some  form. These  neighborhoods  need  it most  critically,  and  they  need  it  first. That's  not  our  conventional  approaches. To  the  extent  that  we  have  conventional  adaptation, it's  not  happening  in  the  most  marginalized  communities. I'll  give  you  one  example.  New  York planted  1  million  trees  in  eight  years. Like  one  of  wonders  of  the  world, it  was  a  tremendous  feat  to  do  that. 1  million  trees  in  eight  years  in  New  York, in  the  city,  most  of those  trees  went  into  existing  green  ******. Most  existing  green  ******  are in  more  affluent  neighborhoods  for obvious  reasons  that  did not  target  the  infrastructure  that  was  needed, most  critically  to  the  places  that  it  was  needed, the  places  that  didn't  have  tree  canopy  over  the  streets. A  radical  approach,  it's  not really  radical,  is  also  reparative. It  prioritizes  these  communities. They  come  first.  They  come  first. Then  in  doing  so,  they  provide the  model  we  need  for  intervening  everywhere. Second  principle,  adaptation. Infrastructure  must  be  dispersive. This  is  in  Vancouver, beautiful  use  of  vegetation. I  said  before,  we  couldn't  plant  trees  on  rooftops. That's  not  true.  I  guess we  can't  see  the  trees  on  the  rooftop  behind  us, but  we  can  do  that  thinking about  adaptation like  conventional  environmental  management, again  spheres  is  to wastewater  treatment  plants  and  landfills concentrated  not  in  my  backyard  facilities. Heat  risk  is  generated  by the  fabric  of  the  city  in  every  part  of  the  city. Every  parcel  in  the  city  contributes  to  heat  risk. And  flood  risk.  If  you're  coastal, you  have  an  ocean  to  deal with  the  flood  risk  we're  seeing. We  saw  it  on  display  in  New  York  last  week. Wasn't  a  hurricane.  That  was  rain  intensities  that we  haven't  seen  historically in  a  very  impervious  environment. Overwhelming  centralized  infrastructure. We  have  to  design, redesign  cities  to  infiltrate  and  collect  stormwater, rainwater,  and  to  reduce  heat  emissions. Every  parcel,  every  rooftop,  every  parking  lot, every  street  surface  has  to  be  reconsidered. Redesigned,  re  engineered,  that  is  a  dispersive, not  a  concentrated  centralized  approach. It's  very  different  the  way we've  gone  about  managing  these  issues  in  cities. Third  principle,  adaptation. Infrastructure  must  be  non  normative. This  is  a  arresting  but  lovely  solar  shade in  Granada,  Spain. Commercial  district  really  don't have  the  street  trees  there,  but  the  mint. But  just  have  these  ornamental  potted  trees. It  gets  really  hot. The  retailers  observe  this, that  people  don't  come  out  and  shop  when  it's  so  hot. Solar  shades  provide  shade. It's  not  as  useful  as  a  tree, but  it's  very  useful. It  cools  the  environment  substantially. This  isn't  part  of  our  normal  playbook. There  are  other  things  that  we  will  need  to do  that  we  can  call  non  normative. Los  Angeles  now  is  starting  to recycle  their  wastewater  into  drinking  water. They've  actually  been  doing  it  for  years, but  they  treat  their  wastewater and  then  they  inject  it  back  into  the  ground, pump  it  out,  treat  it  again, because  it's  got  a  Ick  factor,  right? We  don't  want  to  think  about  the  fact  that we're  drinking  recycled  waste  water. Of  course,  the  Chattahoochee  is recycled  waste  water  from upstream.  So  we're  doing  it  here  too. We're  going  to  have  to  move  outside  of our  comfort  zone  or  what  seems  standard to  us  in  terms  of  how  to adapt  to  these  climate  related  challenges. Being  non  normative  is  the  third  principle.  Then. The  last  principle  here  is  to  be  deconstructive. Adaptation  infrastructure  must  be  deconstructive. Every  city  requires  climate  adaptation  infrastructure. Every  city  is  going  to  undergo  retreat. Every  city  is  going  to  undergo  retreat. We  have  areas  that  we  can't  occupy  anymore, either  because  the  oceans  are  coming  in  or because  we  need  the  space  to  cool  down  the  city. This  is  the  first  parking  day. We  just  celebrated  parking  day  recently  and had  our  planning  students out  commandeering  in  a  parking  space, making  it  more  comfortable. This  is  the  first  one,  this  2005  in  San  Francisco, without  permission  of  the  city, a  street  parking  space  was  commandeered. Turf  was  put  down  a  tree. I  don't  know  whether  the  tree  was  real. I  think  it's  real. The  bench  was  put  out. Experiment.  It  was  an  activist, actually,  art  student  experiment. What  would  happen?  So  they erected  this  and  then  went  and  watched people  came  and  sat  down  in the  parking  space  to  read  the  paper, smoke  a  cigarette,  get  under  the  shade  of a  tree  like  people  started  to  use  the  space. Immediately,  we  cannot  hand  over  any  longer, 50%  of  our  downtown  districts to  parking  in  cars  can't  do  it. It  also  means  that  we  can't  just electrify  ourselves  out  of  this  crisis. It's  critical  for  mitigation  emissions  reduction. We'll  never  get  out  of  this  without  that. But  we  can't  just  trade  in our  conventional  fleet  of  cars  for an  EV  fleet  and  go  home. We  don't  have  the  space. We  need  this  space. We  need  some  of  this  space  to  infiltrate  rainwater  virus, whales,  for  trees, for  all  kinds  of  adaptive  infrastructure. We're  going  to  have  to  learn, not  something  we've  done  in  planning  in my  area  to  deconstruct and  reconstruct  cities  in  a  way  we've  never  done  before. These  are  the  elements of  radical  adaptation  that  I  think  are  most  critical, to  deal  with  heat,  to  deal  with  flooding, to  promote  climate  adaptation. That  is  it.  Thank  you  for  your  attention. Yeah,  I  totally  welcome. Questions.  We  have  about  10  minutes. Happy  to  answer  any  questions  you have  on  anything  related? Yeah, the  bar  graph? Yes.  Yeah. So  I  asked  the  speaker to  return  to  that  graph.  Yeah.  Yeah. Can  you  explain  Druid  Hills,  please? Druid  Hills.  So  why  is  it  heating  up  somewhat? Yeah.  Cool  roofs  is  what  you're  seeing. There  is  the  cool  roof, and  there  we  both  of  those  are  scenarios that  what  we  call  albedo enhancement  in  neighborhoods  that  are  heavily  canopied. Can  have  a  conflict  between  reflective  roofs  and  trees. That's  what  you're  seeing  there, is  that  some  of  that  reflected  radiation in  the  model  is  being  absorbed  by  tree  canopy. Druid  Hills  is  off  the  charts  for  a  tree  canopy. Beautiful,  wonderful  neighborhoods,  a  large  tree  canopy. Where  we  have  the  densest  tree  canopy, we  certainly  don't  want  cool  roofs  below  the  canopy. The  model  sees  the  building  height,  sees  the  roof  height. It  puts  a  cool  roof  on  there  and some  of  that  reflects  into  the  tree  canopy. It's  operating  at  that  level. If  I  went  back  to  the  graphic  where  I  showed you  the  roofing  scenario, you  can  see  some  of  the  neighborhoods not  as  cool  as  they  are  under  just  the  tree  canopy. So  that's  the  conflict. There's  a  great  question.  Yeah.  And  so we  have  to  be  aware  of  where  we're putting  cool  roofs  and  proximity  to  tree  canopy. It's  one  of  the  reasons  that  I  really favor  street  trees  away  from  homes, over  the  infrastructure  where  we  need  them. You  bypass  some  of the  issues  homeowners  have with  is  the  tree  going  to  fall  on  my  house? Street  tree  fall  in  your  house  has to  be  a  really  big  tree,  right? Yeah,  that's  the  issue.  Does  that  answer  your  question? Yeah.  Okay. In  the  back,  yeah. So  you  talked  about  the  cost to  attain  50%  tree  canopy  coverage  in  the  county. Any  idea  what  the  economic impact  of  that  would  be  in  terms of  energy  consumption,  health  outcome? Yeah.  I  don't  have  a  high  number  of  few  but  high,  right? I  think  it's  at  least  two  times usually  in  studies,  the  investment  per  dollar. So  it  depends  on  what  we're  measuring. But  energy  efficiency  emissions  reduction, a  big  part  is  land  value, you're  raising  the  property  value. So  yeah,  I  mean,  I  take  your  point, like  we  would  invest  35  million  a  year. The  returns  would  be  much  higher  than  that,  much  higher. And  there's  so  many  studies  that  show  that. I  mean  it's  not  just  people  who  love  trees, who  believe  that  it's  very  empirically  sound  work  that. So  do  you  know  the  number? Are  you  asking  because  you  know  the  number? Yeah,  the  multiplier,  it's  well  above  one. It  varies  by  community.  But  we're definitely  getting  more  than  $1  out  for  $1  put  in. Yeah.  Great,  Great  question. I'm  curious  about  English  Avenue. Earlier  you  mentioned  starting  with marginalized  neighborhoods  and  these as  a  really  important  place  to  do  the  work. I'm  curious  if  there's  been any  research  into  my  organization, Trees  Atlanta,  we  plant in  English  Avenue  very  aggressively. And  we've  actually  had  a  lot  of  support  there. Because  the  beloved  community, which  is  a  sort  of  mobile  church  in  English  Avenue, has  really  mobilized  a  lot  of the  residents  in  support  of  our  work. So  we  get  a  lot  of  volunteers, we  got  a  lot  of  people  signing  up for  street  trees  and  trees  on  their  property. Is  there  an  initiative  as  part  of this  to  study  the  specific  impacts  on  a  community? Because  I  know  with  Tony  Gio's  canopy  study, part  of  that  involved  going  to specific  grid  squares  and  looking  at, well,  we  saw  this  change  over  ten  years  in  the  canopy. What  caused  that  and  what  were  its  implications? Is  it  possible  to  do  that  exact  same  kind  of  Let's  take a  couple  grid  squares  and  go  look  at them  and  see  what  the  impact  looks  like. What  it  causes  what's  caused  by  it. For  these  interventions. Yeah.  Great  question.  It's  the  next  step. We've  run  this  analysis  that gets  us  to  a  place  of  we  need  8,000  trees  in  Vine  City. I  think  English  ad  is  price  similar, we  need  8,000  trees. And  so  the  next  question  is  next  question  is, first  of  all,  what  does  the  community  want? It  is  this  compatible  with  the  community  wants. And  that  might  be  more  of  a  dialogue about  what  exactly  we're talking  about,  what  the  benefits  are. Community  engagement,  right, to  talk  about  whether  that's  the  appropriate  approach, but  if  it  is  deemed  to  be appropriate  and  desirable,  where  do  they  go? And  that's  also  part  of  that  conversation. Like  we  may  not  want  trees  in  our  backyards, and  I  can  understand  that  concern. If  we  need  to  put  8,000  trees in  and  we  need  to  put  them  along  streets, where  specifically  can  we  do  that? That's  a  really  detailed  analysis of  the  grid  cell  analysis. It's  absolutely  the  next  step, we're  not  cued  up  to  do  that. My  thinking  is  the  city  needs  to really,  um,  champion  this. I've  talked  to  Blank  Foundation is  very  active  in  the  west  side. I've  met  with  blank  foundation  to  propose  just that  we  need  to  look  at  these  neighborhoods, just  a  handful  of these  neighborhoods  that  you're  present  in, and  figure  out  what  interventions  are  compatible  with the  community  and  where  they  could go  street  by  street,  block  by  block. That's  the  next  step.  I  think  that's harder  than  even  finding the  resources  to  plant  the  trees. I  think  finding  the  resources  could  do  that. 7,000  trees  blank  can  definitely  do  that, Picking  on  blank,  but  the  harder  question  is, and  how  does  the  community  feel  about Oh,  no,  Don't  worry. Trees  obviously  are  quite  stressed  by the  same  factors  that  people  are  stressed. And  also  by  the  not  only  the  heat  stress, but  the  variability  of  rain. And  wondering  the  degree  to which  current  models  take  that  into account  and  what  that  implies about  the  nature  of  the  trees  that  we're  planting. Yeah,  I  mean,  we  did one  of  the  important  aspects  of our  models,  we  don't  project  forward. We're  looking  at  a  historical  summer. So  we're  not  trying  to  say,  well, will  these  trees  tolerate  projected  rainfall, projected  wind  speeds,  whatever  that  is. This  is,  again,  it's  the  next  question is  where  can  they  go? Where  are  they  wanted? Where  can  they  go?  And  then  what  species,  right? What  species  then  also  gets  us  into a  dialogue  about  can  we  do  this  with  natives  alone? Are  we  going  to  have  to?  We're  seeing  hardiness  shift. They're  shifting  north.  So  what  is  native  is  changing. What  is  adapted  to  your  environment  is  changing. What  I  think  Michael  is  critical about  this  is  understanding and  making  clear  from  day one  we're  not  talking about  planting  trees  and  walking  away. We're  talking  about  $100  per  tree  every year  for  350,000  trees. When  the  storms  come  in  when the  pests  come  in  and  the  trees  are  lost, we  have  to  be  ready  to  replace  them. But  that's  what  we  do  with  stormwater  infrastructure, right  when  the  pipe  burst,  we  replace  it. We  have  a  crew  ready  to  go. When  the  power  lines  come  down,  we  replace  them. Trees  are  infrastructure  and we  need  to  start  treating  in  that  way. I  don't  know  if  I'm  dancing  around  your  question, but  I  think  species  selection  is  critical. But  also  having  an  active  nursery  program and  ramping  up  the  city's  capacity, or  the  city  in  partnership  with  Trees  Atlanta, to  maintain  this  canopy like  infrastructure,  seems  critical. I'll  make  this  last  question. Hi,  I  was  wondering  if  you're  using  a  wharf, the  method  model  this  or  if  you  do, how  long  it  takes  for  you  to  run such  an  analysis?  For  a  year  maybe? Yeah.  Yeah.  War  is the  weather  and  research  forecasting  model. I  hope  I  got  it  right.  I  don't  run  the  models  myself. We  developed  this  framework working  in  Louisville,  Kentucky. And  we  used,  so  I  can  answer  your  question  directly, is  a  fluid  dynamics  model, it's  getting  the  entire  system. It's  getting  the  winds  moving  layers  of  the  atmosphere. It's  a  very  robust  comprehensive  model. It  took  four  months  of  processing  time. Wars  not  going  to  run  at  100  meters. We  were  in  war  at  500  meters,  a  half  a  kilometer. And  that  was  the  processing  time. That's  a  long  process.  We're  using the  Surface  Energy  Bonds  model  here. This  is  a  model,  it's  adapted  from  a  model  called lumps  that's  treating  every  grid  cell  separately. The  movement  of  the  ejection across  the  model  is  much  limited  if  it's  captured  at  all. That  works  for  us  because  we're  thinking about  the  most  extreme  heat  conditions where  it's  pretty  stagnant, pretty  limited  wind  movement  anyway. But  if  we  wanted  to  get  a  temp  of  what the  map  looks  like  under  a  higher  wind  speed, it  wouldn't  be  fully  represented  by  what  we  use. But  it  makes  it  reduces  the  cost  dramatically. This  study  for  Atlanta  was  $35,000  When  we  worked  in Louisville  was  $150,000  It really  puts  it  within  reach  of  cities, but  there  are  those  tradeoffs as  I'm  sure  you  probably  appreciate. Okay.  I  think  we're  at  the  end  of  the  time. I  want  to  exit  early, but  I  think  we're  about  there. Thanks  everybody  for  coming. If  you  have  questions  about  any  of  this, you  can  follow  with  me. Urban  climate  lab,  you  can  find  me. I  really  appreciate  you  coming  out  and  listening. Enjoy  the  rest  of  your  day.  I  hope  I.