The move by the Trump administration to terminate cost tracking of billion-dollar weather disasters may hinder future scientific and insurance analysis.
U.S. Government Halts Tracking of Extreme Weather Costs
U.S. Government Halts Tracking of Extreme Weather Costs
Decision raises concerns about data accessibility for insurers and researchers amid rising climate events.
In a controversial decision, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that it would cease tracking the financial impact of the nation's costliest disasters — those causing damages exceeding $1 billion — effective immediately. This action is expected to have significant repercussions for researchers, insurance companies, and policymakers who rely on such data to assess and respond to natural disasters, including hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts, which are becoming increasingly frequent as climate change progresses.
Critics are denouncing this move as part of a broader pattern by the Trump administration aimed at limiting scientific inquiry and climate research initiatives. Recent actions include the dismissal of key authors involved in the country’s crucial climate assessment, plans to remove funding designated for climate-related grants to National Parks, and a proposed budget contrived to cut funding significantly for climate science within the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies.
Prominent voices from the academic and political arenas are expressing alarm over the potential fallout from this policy. Jesse M. Keenan, an associate professor and director at Tulane University’s Center on Climate Change and Urbanism, argued that discontinuing this critical data collection would significantly handicap both federal and state authorities. He highlighted that the absence of this data leaves the government "flying blind" regarding the financial ramifications of climate-related extreme weather events.
Further criticism emerged from Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, who labeled the decision as “anti-science, anti-safety, and anti-American,” labeling it a move that defies reason and undermines essential efforts to prepare for the increasing ramifications of climate change.
Critics are denouncing this move as part of a broader pattern by the Trump administration aimed at limiting scientific inquiry and climate research initiatives. Recent actions include the dismissal of key authors involved in the country’s crucial climate assessment, plans to remove funding designated for climate-related grants to National Parks, and a proposed budget contrived to cut funding significantly for climate science within the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies.
Prominent voices from the academic and political arenas are expressing alarm over the potential fallout from this policy. Jesse M. Keenan, an associate professor and director at Tulane University’s Center on Climate Change and Urbanism, argued that discontinuing this critical data collection would significantly handicap both federal and state authorities. He highlighted that the absence of this data leaves the government "flying blind" regarding the financial ramifications of climate-related extreme weather events.
Further criticism emerged from Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, who labeled the decision as “anti-science, anti-safety, and anti-American,” labeling it a move that defies reason and undermines essential efforts to prepare for the increasing ramifications of climate change.
