Sarah Kapnick Goldman Sachs. The overlap between financial growth and climate change was almost immediately shocked and she was lacking in client consultations around the topic.

She believes that integrating the two will help investors understand risks and opportunities and will help them use climate information in their finance and business operations. With a degree in theoretical mathematics and geophysical fluid dynamics, Kapnick sees himself as a unique position to uniquely address this challenge.

But first, she had to study the science in depth.

This allowed her to do more research and then go to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Commerce’s science and regulator. Its defining mission is to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts, and to share this knowledge and information with others.

In 2022, Kapnik was appointed as the chief scientist of NOAA. Two years later, JPMorgan Chase Hired her but not as Chief Sustainability Officer, which is common among most large investment banks around the world and has filled positions at JPMorgan.

Instead, Kapnick is the global climate consulting director at JPMorgan, a unique job she envisioned in 2004.

Just a few days before the North American hurricane season officially began, CNBC talked with Kapnick, who was in her JPMorgan Chase office in New York about her current role in banking and how she could advise and warn clients.

Here is the Q&A:

(This interview has been easily edited for length and clarity.)

Diana Olic (CNBC): Why does JPMorgan need you?

Sarah Kapnick, head of climate consulting at JPMorgan Chase: JPMorgan and banks need climate expertise as customers need to understand climate change, how it affects businesses and how to plan. Customers want to understand how to create frameworks to think about climate change, how to think about it strategically, how to think about it from operations, how to think about it from diversified and long-term business plans.

Everyone has a chief sustainability officer. You are not that way. What's the difference?

The difference is that I have a deep background in climate science and how climate science translates into economic business. NOAA worked at NOAA for most of my career, a scientific institution, but it is a scientific institution of the Ministry of Commerce. So my job is to understand what it means to the economy due to the future of physics, but can translate into? What does this mean for economic development? What does this mean for economic output? How do you use this science to support the future of business? So I have a deep idea that combines all science, all this business thinking, the economy, how to translate into national security. So it combines all these different problems people are facing now, along with the system’s problems so they can understand, how to browse this complexity, and then how do you turn all that information toward the moment you’re at hand?

Here is an example for us on the ground to illustrate the role of some of the expertise on investors.

There is a client who is worried about the future of wildfire risks, so they are asking, how does wildfire risks develop? Why not in the building code? How will future build code change? What will happen then? What type of modeling is used for this and what type of observations are used for? So, can I explain the entire flow of the data to them? How and where does the data used in decision making come from. How do they develop? How will they develop in the future? Therefore, we can carefully study the various uncertainties of the various situations of the world's appearance to determine what to do now, be able to prepare for it, or be able to shift this preparation over time as the uncertainty is reduced, and more information is known.

So, are they making investment decisions based on your information?

Yes, they are making investment decisions. They are deciding when to invest because sometimes they learn as things go. They want to act early, or want to act as more information, but they want to know what the possibility might be, and when they know or can know the entire field of information, and the conditions for them to know more information so that they can think of action, and when and when they need to take any action.

Then, how does this make their judgment on investment, especially about wildfires?

As wildfire risks are growing, there are some recent events like Los Angeles wildfires seen. Is the problem I get that might happen in my place? When will it happen? Will I notify in advance? How should I change and invest in the infrastructure? How should I consider the differences in infrastructure, infrastructure construction? Should I consider insurance, different types of insurance? How should I enter the capital market for such work? It's a series of questions trying to figure out how to reduce vulnerability, how to reduce financial risks, but if there are risks in this location, there may be more opportunities in these other locations, which are safer and I should consider them as well. It thinks overall in overall risk management and through risks and how to deal with it, but then considers the opportunities that may arise due to such changes in physical conditions in the world.

But you are not an economist. Are you working with others at JPMorgan to increase?

Yes, my work is very collaborative. I work with subject matter experts from different departments, different industries, different parts of different capitals on various teams, so I have expertise in science, technology, policy and security and then work with them in any field where they are able to provide the most banks for our clients.

With the Trump administration cutting to NOAA, FEMA and all sources of information collection, we don't see some of the things we usually see in the data. How does this affect your work?

Anyway, I'm looking for what we need. What I'm going to say is that if the data is no longer available we will convert and move to other datasets, use other datasets, and I'm starting to see development in some parts of the private sector to attract those data that used to be available elsewhere. I think we're going to see this adjustment period, where people search for any data they need to answer their own questions. And there will be a chance. There are a large number of startups in the field that are beginning to grow, and there are some with these data sets. They start making them available, but as people figure out where they will get the information they need, because many market decisions or financial decisions are based on certain data sets that people think will always be there.

But government data is considered to be the highest data at present, incomprehensible, best data. Now, how do we know that when going to the private sector, this data will be as credible as government data?

There will be a period of adjustment as people figure out the datasets they want to trust, what they don’t trust and what they want to use. This is the point in time to adjust, because everyone is used to the things they work with, and they don't have it now. This is the question I get from a lot of clients, what datasets should I look for? How should I evaluate this question? Will I now build an internal team to be able to evaluate information that has never been available before? And I'm starting to see this happening in different departments where people are increasingly having their own meteorologists, their own climatologists, and able to help guide them in some of these decisions.

Last thought?

Climate change is not something that will happen in the future, but will affect finance in the future. This is a future risk, and now we have actually found our bottom line.