After facing a turbulent period of hurricanes, storms, and wildfires that caused at least $1 billion in damages, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently made a controversial decision. On May 8, 2025, the organization announced its plan to cease tracking the economic repercussions of the nation’s most devastating disasters.
This abrupt shift will have far-reaching consequences beyond just numbers on a spreadsheet. The cessation of data collection means that insurers, scientists, and policymakers will be left in the dark when it comes to comprehending the financial impacts of catastrophic events like hurricanes, droughts, or wildfires.
In a world where extreme weather occurrences are becoming more frequent and severe due to global warming—a fact underscored by 27 billion-dollar weather or climate disasters last year alone—this decision raises serious concerns about our ability to prepare for and respond to future crises effectively.
The move to halt cost tracking is not an isolated incident but rather part of a broader pattern within the Trump administration aimed at curtailing climate research efforts. From dismissing climate assessment authors to slashing budgets for critical scientific programs focused on climate change across various departments, this administration has consistently demonstrated its skepticism towards environmental issues.
Jesse M. Keenan, an associate professor renowned for his work on climate change and urbanism at Tulane University in New Orleans, minced no words when he criticized this latest development. Keenan emphasized that without access to comprehensive data on extreme weather costs, both federal and state governments would struggle to allocate resources strategically or make informed decisions regarding infrastructure investments.
“It defies logic,”
remarked Keenan bluntly.
“The U.S. government is essentially flying blind when it comes to understanding the true costs associated with extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change.”
In response to NOAA’s announcement, Senator Ed Markey from Massachusetts condemned the decision as
“anti-science, anti-safety, and anti-American.”
These sentiments echo widespread concerns among researchers and lawmakers who fear that such actions could hinder crucial efforts aimed at combating climate change’s adverse effects.
As we navigate through an increasingly unpredictable climatic landscape characterized by escalating risks and uncertainties, one thing remains clear: knowledge is power. By depriving key stakeholders of vital information needed to tackle environmental challenges head-on, we may inadvertently compromise our ability to safeguard our communities and secure a sustainable future for generations to come.
