---
In a controversial move, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced it will not continue tracking the costs of extreme weather events that inflict at least $1 billion in damages. This decision, effective immediately, has raised significant alarm among researchers, insurance professionals, and policymakers who rely on this data to decipher patterns in catastrophic events, including hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires, which are reportedly increasing in severity due to climate change.
This shift is seen as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to restrict climate research and data collection. Recent trends have included the dismissal of key contributors to the nation's climate assessments and proposed budget cuts to vital climate science programs spanning various governmental departments.
Critics, including Jesse M. Keenan, an associate professor at Tulane University and director of its Center on Climate Change and Urbanism, expressed that abandoning this data collection will significantly hinder decision-making processes for both federal and state governments, particularly in budget allocation and infrastructure investment strategies. "It defies logic," he stated, emphasizing the risks of operating without a comprehensive understanding of the costs associated with extreme weather.
The ramifications of this decision could not only impact infrastructure planning but also diminish the ability of scientists to conduct necessary research that helps delineate the complex relationship between climate change and economic loss. Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, condemned the policy on social media, labeling it as "anti-science, anti-safety, and anti-American," reflecting widespread concern regarding the administration's approach to climate data.
As extreme weather patterns continue to evolve in a warming world, the possible impacts of the government's decision to cease tracking these financial repercussions remain to be fully evaluated, potentially leaving vulnerable communities without crucial insights needed for resilience and mitigation strategies.
In a controversial move, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced it will not continue tracking the costs of extreme weather events that inflict at least $1 billion in damages. This decision, effective immediately, has raised significant alarm among researchers, insurance professionals, and policymakers who rely on this data to decipher patterns in catastrophic events, including hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires, which are reportedly increasing in severity due to climate change.
This shift is seen as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to restrict climate research and data collection. Recent trends have included the dismissal of key contributors to the nation's climate assessments and proposed budget cuts to vital climate science programs spanning various governmental departments.
Critics, including Jesse M. Keenan, an associate professor at Tulane University and director of its Center on Climate Change and Urbanism, expressed that abandoning this data collection will significantly hinder decision-making processes for both federal and state governments, particularly in budget allocation and infrastructure investment strategies. "It defies logic," he stated, emphasizing the risks of operating without a comprehensive understanding of the costs associated with extreme weather.
The ramifications of this decision could not only impact infrastructure planning but also diminish the ability of scientists to conduct necessary research that helps delineate the complex relationship between climate change and economic loss. Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, condemned the policy on social media, labeling it as "anti-science, anti-safety, and anti-American," reflecting widespread concern regarding the administration's approach to climate data.
As extreme weather patterns continue to evolve in a warming world, the possible impacts of the government's decision to cease tracking these financial repercussions remain to be fully evaluated, potentially leaving vulnerable communities without crucial insights needed for resilience and mitigation strategies.
