- Name: Emily Seyller
- Location: Washington, DC
- Current position: Program Manager for Informing Decisions and Adaptation Science at the U.S. Global Change Research Program
- Interview date: 21 March 2014
Bio: Emily has over 10 years of experience working with a variety of organizations on domestic and international climate change science, policy, and strategy. She is currently the Program Manager for Informing Decisions and Adaptation Science at the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) National Coordination Office in Washington, DC. USGCRP is a Federal program that coordinates and integrates global change research across 13 government agencies to ensure that it most effectively and efficiently serves the Nation and the world. USGCRP was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and has since made the world’s largest scientific investment in the areas of climate science and global change research. Prior to joining the USGCRP, Emily was the Deputy Program Manager for Booz Allen Hamilton’s Climate Change Center of Excellence. She is certified as a Change Management Advanced Practitioner (CMAP) from Georgetown University and is also certified in Climate Change Decision-Making from the University of Washington. Emily received an M.A. in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy from The George Washington University and a B.A. in Public Policy and Environmental Studies from Hamilton College.
Interview
Jenny: When and why did you start working in adaptation?
Emily: My educational background is in environmental and natural resources policy. When I graduated, I knew I wanted to do environmental policy work, but I wasn’t sure what type.
I figured where best to go but DC, and I landed a job working at a consulting firm where we worked with developers. I started to get a better sense about the use of land and preservation, and I wanted to get more into the smart growth/sustainable development area.
While I was doing my Master’s at The George Washington University, I was recruited by one of my professors, and I got more involved in local planning. I had concerns about where development was happening. Sustainable development and environmental factors were not taken into consideration as much as I wanted them to be. I started to get more interested in how we were affecting our land and how things would be developed in the future if climate change impacts were to become more intense. I decided I wanted to focus on the sustainable development and protection of land along with having a thriving economy, which brought me more toward resilience. I applied to Booz Allen Hamilton, where I started their climate change security effort that pulled together some folks with expertise ranging from security, risk management, sustainability and natural resources, analytics, and modeling.
We started an initiative called “Hot House,” which really got into looking at the first-, second-, and third-order impacts of climate change and how national and international security could be impacted. Through my experience and leadership with this initiative, I became known throughout Booz Allen as a climate change expert. After three years of Hot House being in existence, Booz Allen was hired by the National Science Foundation to support the development of USGCRP’s 10-year national research plan for global change. Shortly thereafter, a position opened up at USGCRP’s National Coordination Office (NCO) as the adaptation science coordinator and I was hired! This position got me more involved in supporting the agencies on their adaptation planning efforts and responding to new Executive Order that had come out at that time (Executive Order 13514). Now I’m the program manager for the Inform Decisions pillar which adaptation science fits within along with mitigation and decision support.
You started working at the local level and now you’re working at the national level - do you think in the long term you’d want to continue at the national level or do you want to work at a different scale?
I’d really like to work at the local or regional level, because that’s where action is really taking place on the ground and where impacts are being felt. Right now, I help to coordinate and support interagency science that helps support what’s going on at the local and regional level, but it would be fascinating to work on the ground in an innovative way, to think about how to integrate my knowledge of future changes in the climate into 10 to 20 year comprehensive plans. I’m hoping that I’ll eventually get to do some of that.
I’d also like to work in the private sector, because of the innovative thought leadership that currently exists in that sector. It would be great to see more examples of where the federal government could partner with the private sector. We’re starting to see this with data, but in terms of actual on the ground projects, it would be neat to see more.
The new Executive Order (13653) is encouraging federal agencies to think more on the community level, but those efforts are still in their infancy in terms of adaptation.
Are there factor you point to where you can say “you should do this project not only because you’ll be flooded, but also because...” For example, do you think there are economic benefits or other sorts of opportunities that we could maybe be discussing more?
It’s hard to point to economic opportunities of investing in climate adaptation strategies because they differ by location and the research on economic benefits of adaptation isn’t as robust yet. FEMA has done some research about how investing in infrastructure saves money in the long run - showing that every dollar spent on disaster preparedness saves the public an average of four dollars - but I think it comes down to financial responsibility, like saving for retirement or investing in health or home insurance. You’re taking a chance, but it’s just smart business and smart future planning. You need to think about how you can still thrive when things happen and how you can rebound more quickly if you put certain measures in place.
I guess it comes down to trying to convince people why this is more important than other spending. To me, it seems like if you’re investing in community development or redevelopment that in any way could be adjusted just slightly and make it more resilient, it’s worth the extra investment, particularly with natural and built infrastructure.
A lot of companies and organizations are thinking about climate change impacts and extreme weather events as just another risk in their risk management portfolio. They’re looking at this as a global issue, especially when it comes to their supply chain for example. What would happen to their supply chain if there was a flood or hurricane in the region where they purchase their products? With the floods in Thailand in 2011, the auto industry was severely impacted as the production of or products needed to build cars for certain auto companies were based in Thailand. So it’s important that we cover our bases and make sure we can still thrive in a changing climate.
We definitely need to do more research into the economic benefits and the valuation of adaptation, as well as looking at the co-benefits and conflicts of an integrated approach to adaptation and mitigation.
Are people starting to think more about integrating adaptation and mitigation? Is that new?
It’s somewhat of a new area. I think people kept them separate because of funding and the different mandates that are out for them. On the federal side, there hasn’t been as much progress on taking this integrated approach. But as actions are implemented, I think agencies will likely look at multiple ways to both cut carbon pollution and prepare for climate change impacts. Through the National Climate Assessment network, NCAnet, we’ve created an affinity group that looks at this very topic called the Adaptation + Mitigation Nexus or “AMNex.” This group is co-led between USGCRP’s Inform Decisions program and the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). The idea is to maximize the return on infrastructure and climate investments (for both mitigation and adaptation) while also maximizing the economic, social, and environmental benefits. So considering strategies such as green roofs, tree canopy, microgrids, combined heat and power, etc. as ways to both reduce carbon pollution and preparing for climate impacts or extreme weather events.
You have a lot of history working in this field. Do you have any major lessons you learned, or a big “A-ha!” moment where you figured something out that was really important for you personally or working in adaptation?
A couple of years ago, after having much training in environmental policy and a focus on natural resources, I came to the realization that you can’t talk to people about protection of the natural habitat unless they’re completely passionate about it. You have to understand your stakeholders and what they’re passionate about, and you have to talk about how their interests and assets might be impacted by climate change. There are so many other ways to talk about climate change without even using that phrase. For example, with homeowners, you could talk about the possibility of insurance rates increasing, property value decreasing, or other issues they may face if they live in a flood plain or along coastlines that are more vulnerable to intense storms or flooding. Also, a lot more people can grasp the impacts of extreme weather events like floods, hurricanes, or heat waves much more so than gradual changes in our climate like sea level rise. So talking with them about events that they’ve either experienced in the past or have family or friends that have experienced can make it real for them.
What resource do you not have, but would you find most valuable to help you with your work?
We get asked a lot for climate impact maps that can layer the observed and projected impacts of climate change so that organizations can see where their critical infrastructure, assets, or investments may be more vulnerable to impacts. We don’t currently have that type of tool but it would be great to see something like that in the near future! It was discussed at the recent White House Datapaloozathat several of the partners may have the capability to do something like this. For example, Esri, the company that produces the ArcGIS software used by thousands of city and regional planning experts, will be partnering with 12 cities across the country to create free and open “maps and apps” to help state and local governments plan for climate change impacts. So the capabilities are out there it just needs to happen. It would also be useful to be able to lay over existing regional or local strategies to help people know who else is taking action and who could be a potential partner. The #1 thing is to encourage the building of partnerships in communities across the U.S.