The Conservative Case for Climate Resilience | Opinion

On July 4, 2025, 8-year-olds Eloise Peck and Linnie McCown and 9-year-old Lila Bonner went to sleep in the Bubble Inn cabin at Camp Mystic, a 99-year-old Christian summer camp in Texas Hill Country. They never woke up. The Guadalupe River rose 26 feet in 45 minutes, transforming their cabin—which FEMA had removed from flood maps after camp appeals—into a death trap. Twenty-seven people died that night, part of 135 killed statewide. Days later, when asked if investigations would assign blame for the deaths, Texas Governor Greg Abbott bristled at the question itself, declaring that “who’s to blame” was “the word choice of losers” before pivoting to a football analogy about winners focusing on solutions.

Yet across Republican-led states, a different story unfolds—one that suggests climate resilience isn’t about accepting liberal environmental ideology, but about protecting what conservatives value most: property, prosperity, and people.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who famously scrubbed “climate change” from state law, has quietly built one of the nation’s most ambitious resilience programs. Florida’s $1.8 billion Resilient Florida initiative represents one of the largest state-level climate adaptation investments in American history. DeSantis doesn’t call it climate action; he has explicitly linked his storm preparedness efforts to property. For instance, he launched the My Safe Florida Home program to help citizens with “strengthening homes against storms with impact-resistant doors and windows, aiming to reduce insurance costs through mandatory mitigation discounts.”

The reframing works. While Washington debates carbon credits, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed legislation allocating $45 million for a revolving disaster fund to address emergency and rebuilding needs. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine announced that $11 billion in federal infrastructure funding would be directed toward upgrading the state’s transportation system and improving water infrastructure.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp announced $3.3 billion in infrastructure investments emphasizing “job creation” and “incredible growth.” Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, the self-proclaimed “infrastructure governor,” established an Energy Infrastructure Bank for grid reliability.

These aren’t environmental crusaders. They’re pragmatists responding to an insurance crisis that threatens the foundation of conservative economics: property ownership. Florida has lost more than 30 home insurance companies in recent years, with major carriers like Farmers and AAA pulling back coverage. Louisiana homeowners pay roughly three times the national average for insurance premiums.

When insurers flee, property values face downward pressure as banks won’t issue mortgages without insurance coverage—threatening to trigger a systemic economic shock similar to 2008. The World Resources Institute found that $1 invested in resilience returns $10.50 over 10 years. Meanwhile, climate disasters now average $140 billion annually, with 2024’s Hurricane Helene alone causing $78.7 billion in damages.

Trump’s former Defense Secretary James Mattis said, “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.” After rebuilding Tyndall Air Force Base for $4.9 billion post-hurricane, the military now builds to withstand Category 5 storms as standard practice.

Even conservative think tanks are shifting. The Heritage Foundation advocates “adaptation to extreme weather” through “affordable, reliable energy.” The American Enterprise Institute argues to “shift the majority of our policymaking attention to an agenda of resilience building” through market mechanisms. R Street Institute notes adaptation appeals to conservatives because it “use[s] existing wealth to adapt to changing conditions.”

The business community gets it, too. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, no friend to environmental regulation, now argues that every $1 invested in resilience saves $13 in economic impact. Major corporations from Walmart to ExxonMobil are hardening infrastructure not from environmental conviction but from fiduciary duty.

Research shows conservatives strongly prefer adaptation (flood defenses, drought-resistant crops) over mitigation (carbon taxes, renewable mandates). Adaptation doesn’t assign blame; it simply prepares for reality. Young Republicans are especially receptive—82 percent of Americans under the age of 35 believe climate change poses a serious problem for future generations.

I’m not a conservative, but I recognize wisdom in this approach. While we need emission reductions, waiting for global consensus while communities flood is its own form of denial. Conservative leaders are already investing billions in resilience. They’re just allergic to the vocabulary.

The tragedy is this pragmatism remains disconnected from broader Republican climate policy. While DeSantis invests hundreds of millions in resilience, he removes climate language from state law. Texas spends billions on flood infrastructure while its Republican Party, according to MIT Climate Portal, maintains an official stance opposing “climate change initiatives” and emission standards—despite scientific consensus that fossil fuel combustion drives warming that intensifies the state’s weather disasters and drought conditions.

Camp Mystic’s owner, Dick Eastland, warned about flood dangers for decades. After a 1987 flood killed 10 children, he championed a computerized warning system—shut down in 1999 over maintenance issues. He died trying to save others.

The lesson isn’t that conservatives should embrace the Green New Deal. It’s that principled conservatives should embrace what they’re already doing: protecting property values, ensuring business continuity, avoiding disaster costs, and saving lives. Call it resilience, call it infrastructure, call it economic development—just build it before the next 8-year-old goes to sleep in a floodway.

Conservative communities need more than reactive disaster spending. They need proactive adaptation planning, early warning systems, and honest acknowledgment of increasing risks. Some Republican leaders understand this. More should follow their lead, not because Al Gore tells them to, but because their constituents’ lives and livelihoods depend on it.

The conservative case for climate resilience isn’t about accepting blame or abandoning principles. It’s about recognizing that adaptive pragmatism beats ideological purity when the waters rise. Just ask any parent in Hunt, Texas.

Daniel Lehewych has an M.A. in philosophy from the CUNY Graduate Center, specializing in moral psychology, cognitive science, and the philosophy of mind. In addition to contributing to Newsweek, Daniel is a contributor to Big Think.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.