aspen has lost a month of winter since 1980. colorado faces $50-54 billion in climate damages by 2050. ski seasons are shrinking. wildfire costs are exploding. droughts are deepening.
this week, a new study funded by aspen one confirmed what everyone in the roaring fork valley already knows: the bill is coming due.
the question isn't whether the data is accurate. it's why we keep commissioning studies instead of deploying capital.
the pattern
hannah berman, sustainability director at aspen one, captured the tension clearly: "not working on climate is an active choice that is very expensive for our state."
she's right. but there's another expensive choice: paying to document the problem while solutions wait.
the colorado fiscal institute study projects:
| category | projected cost (2025-2050) |
|---|---|
| heat mortality | $24.9 billion |
| infrastructure | $8.68 billion |
| wildfire damage + adaptation | $3.64 billion |
| winter recreation | $351 million |
| storm damages | $220.3 million |
these numbers are important. but they're not new information. we've known the trajectory for decades. every year brings another study, another press conference, another call for "urgent climate action."
and every year, the funding gap between knowing and doing grows wider.
what we already know
the science has been clear for years:
-
snowpack provides 50-75% of freshwater in the western U.S. — and it's declining 20% since the 1950s with another 25-40% projected by 2050. when there's no snow, everyone pays →
-
flood, fire, and drought are expressions of one problem: a degraded water cycle. restoring watersheds addresses all three simultaneously. one investment, three disasters prevented →
-
agricultural water curtailments are structural, not temporary. investing upstream costs less than the water being lost. beyond fallowing: watershed investment for agricultural water security →
-
the colorado wildfire resiliency code makes compliance a cost center — but it could be an investment. the hidden cost of compliance →
the information exists. the mechanisms exist. what's missing is the deployment.
the study paradox
studies are valuable. they quantify risk. they build political will. they create shared language.
but at some point, studies become procrastination.
if the goal is action, what return does the next study generate that the last fifty didn't?
the colorado fiscal institute report estimates $98-121 million in incremental snowmaking costs through 2050. that's the cost of compensating for lost snowpack.
what if that same capital funded watershed protection instead? restored forests that retain snow longer. healthy meadows that extend baseflows. functioning water cycles that generate precipitation.
you can spend $100 million on snowmaking machines, or you can invest in the system that produces snow.
one is an expense. the other is infrastructure.
what already exists
$SNOWPACK is an ensurance coin that funds watershed protection. the ski resort, the water utility, the farmer, and the rafting outfitter can all hold it. their participation funds the system they all depend on.
$WATER ABUNDANCE routes proceeds to water-abundance.ensurance — perpetual funding for the ecosystems that provide water security.
these aren't proposals. they're live instruments. trading today.
no study required.
the choice
the colorado study identifies $50-54 billion in projected costs. it recommends "urgent climate action."
but climate action isn't a policy position. it's a capital allocation decision.
| approach | what it funds | outcome |
|---|---|---|
| more studies | documentation of the problem | shared understanding, no risk reduction |
| reactive spending | insurance premiums, disaster response | compensation after loss |
| proactive investment | watershed protection, forest health | risk reduction before loss |
aspen one has the resources to do more than fund studies. so do the 60+ groups, health and business leaders who gathered at the capitol.
the question isn't whether colorado can afford to act on climate. it's whether colorado can afford to keep studying instead.
the bottom line
the data is in. it's been in for years. every stakeholder in that press conference — the ski resort, the water utility, the wildfire survivors, the nonprofits — depends on the same functioning ecosystems.
ensurance exists to coordinate that shared dependence into shared investment.
not charity. not advocacy. infrastructure.
explore ensurance coins for watershed protection →