US Halts Tracking Climate-Driven Extreme Weather Costs

    0
    0

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has announced a significant change in its operations by deciding to stop tracking and updating the costs related to climate change-driven weather disasters such as floods, heat waves, wildfires, and more after 2024. This move illustrates a broader shift under the Trump administration, which has been systematically scaling back federal resources devoted to addressing climate change.

    NOAA operates under the U.S. Department of Commerce and holds primary responsibilities including providing daily weather forecasts, issuing severe storm warnings, and conducting climate monitoring. It also encompasses the National Weather Service within its functions. It was revealed that NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information will cease updating the Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database after next year, archiving the extensive data collection that has been ongoing since 1980.

    Historically, the agency has chronicled numerous significant weather events across the United States, documenting insults like devastating hurricanes, hail storms, droughts, and freeze events that have resulted in trillions of dollars in damage. To estimate the financial impact of these events, the database synthesizes data from sources such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, insurance companies, and state agencies.

    A statement by NOAA Communications Director Kim Doster clarified that this decision aligns with “evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes,” reflecting shifts in the agency’s focus.

    Scientists have documented a trend of increasing frequency, intensity, and economic toll of such weather events due to climate change. Experts link recent events, including the oppressive heat, Hurricane Milton, wildfires in Southern California, and severe cold spells, to the ongoing climate crisis. This escalation highlights a critical need to understand the financial impact as insurance premiums are rising, especially in areas vulnerable to disasters like flooding and fires.

    The dataset’s limitation lies in its focus solely on the nation’s most exorbitant weather disasters. NOAA’s data is heralded as comprehensive and uniquely positioned, given its access to sensitive government sources. Unlike private databases that might have commercial constraints, NOAA’s data has been available for public use without proprietary restrictions. While other data sets focus on estimating fatalities from disasters, they don’t fill the gap left by NOAA’s comprehensive analysis.

    Meteorologist Jeff Masters from Yale Climate Connections suggests that alternative information might come from international disaster databases or insurance firms. Nevertheless, he asserts that “The NOAA database is the gold standard” for evaluating the financial implications of extreme weather events. The loss of this resource is impactful, especially at a time when it is crucial to decode the mounting costs attributed to climate change.

    Kristina Dahl, Vice President of Science at Climate Central, emphasizes that removing such crucial data will not alter the reality of the rising frequency and severity of these disasters. Dahl commented, “Extreme weather events that cause significant damage are visible indications to the public that climate change is already impacting us all.” She stressed the importance of highlighting these events and noted that curtailing such efforts may render Americans more vulnerable in the face of worsening climate conditions.

    This announcement aligns with consistent efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to lower the emphasis on climate change and downplay the role of greenhouse gases in shaping weather patterns in government narratives and reports. The administration has favored keeping traditional polluting industries such as coal, oil, and gas as allies, industries that research links to climate damage.

    Furthermore, the move signals yet another reduction in the capabilities of NOAA under the Trump administration in terms of weather, ocean, and fisheries management. Earlier in the year, a significant number of NOAA employees, including weather forecasters on probation, were dismissed as part of governmental reductions to trim the federal workforce. This move was aligned with broader “efficiency” efforts, and a second round saw over 1,000 further cuts within the agency, which led experts to express concerns about the potential risks to lives and the U.S. economy. Experts have also voiced worries around reduced availability of key weather data, such as from weather balloons, translating to poorer U.S. meteorological predictions.

    Future changes are anticipated, potentially including propositions within the president’s preliminary budgeting. Also noted was a temporary halt in language translations of NOAA’s weather services, though this service resumed shortly thereafter.