Latest news with #NationalClimateAssessment
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Is Going to Raise Your Insurance Premiums
In April 2023, a report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology warned that 'when it comes to assessing the future risks from extreme weather, America is flying blind.' Two years on, it would be overly generous to say that America is still flying at all on that front. The Trump administration has kneecapped the federal government's already limited ability to understand the impact of climate change on the country, firing top scientists and canceling major grants and research efforts such as the National Climate Assessment. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—reportedly targeted for a 27 percent budget cut—has stopped updating its database of weather and climate disasters that cause more than $1 billion worth of damage. As temperatures rise, wildly expensive disasters are becoming increasingly common. Through the 1980s, the United States experienced roughly three weather events per year that cost upward of a billion dollars. Over the last five years, the annual average was 24. Scientists and nonprofits are now rushing to stockpile federal climate and weather data, fearful that the administration could soon erase it entirely. That information—and the ability to reliably collect and interpret it moving forward—isn't of interest only to researchers and green groups. Whether it comes directly from federal websites or through proprietary climate risk modeling, climate and weather data is foundational to how governments, investors, and corporations understand the future and plan to navigate it. NOAA, NASA, and other federal agencies provide the information that helps cities decide how high to build bridges and even the credit ratings that determine whether corporations and governments can finance new building projects. Federal climate data helps insurance companies determine how much to charge homeowners for new or renewed policies. The system by which all that data gets translated onto balance sheets and monthly bills was already flawed, lacking adequate accountability and coordination. As the White House declares war on climate policy, it could break down entirely. Gathering real-time data on weather and the earth's climate is a massive undertaking, requiring expansive networks of federal satellites, buoys, balloons, and aircraft; staff to monitor, operate, and maintain that equipment; and teams of interdisciplinary researchers to interpret and organize the information collected, align it with historical datasets, observe trends, and use supercomputers to model how the earth's climate might behave in the future. Downstream are private companies that 'downscale' that data and modeling in order to analyze how those larger patterns could affect specific assets like apartment complexes or municipal buildings. Companies offer these more boutique, 'asset-level' models to customers who use them to make planning and investment decisions. First Street, for instance—among the largest of these firms—partners with Redfin and Zillow to provide information on flood risk for real estate listings. The role federal research plays in this elaborate operation is essential. 'We can't expect the private sector to step up and replace global climate data,' said Madison Condon, an associate professor of law at Boston University who studies the market for climate risk data. Although the private-sector models can provide valuable supplements, local governments, especially—which tend to lack in-house experts to model their climate risk, and the funds to pay for those services—depend on federal research. 'Town managers and local zoning commissions very regularly rely on NOAA's sea level rise maps,' Condon explained. 'City managers use the National Climate Assessment as a high-level description of what the future will look like.' While private climate risk analysts use publicly generated data to make their models, the way those companies actually create the products they offer is proprietary. The firms operate in something of a regulatory black box and generally aren't subject to peer review processes. Outside researchers who might want to reproduce certain models to test their accuracy generally can't, because companies' methodologies are protected as trade secrets. Academics have also raised serious concerns about the accuracy of translating global climate models into granular, asset-level analyses to determine whether to take out a 30-year mortgage, for example. There are very few public risk models to judge these products against, and different companies often produce divergent analyses. A 2024 Bloomberg Green analysis of two flood-risk models found that when considering the vulnerability of certain areas of Los Angeles County to a once-in-a-century flood event, the models matched just 21 percent of the time. As such information becomes an important factor for things like insurance underwriting and federal funding applications, municipal governments have a lot to lose. So do homeowners who might want to negotiate lower premiums. Even companies in the climate risk business are wary of federal data being replicated by private companies. Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, told Bloomberg in recent weeks that the private sector can't recreate NOAA's billion-dollar disaster database or its continuously updated maps and charts, which 'are more accessible and meaningful to the public.' Some insurers have already signaled too that relying more on private data might cause them to raise premium costs. Brian Espie—chief underwriting officer at the insurance provider Kettle—told the trade publication Insurance Business that his company 'was built up around a proprietary wildfire model, and much of our data sources are from public, government-supported entities.' If those disappear, companies like Kettle will need to pay for whatever private data is available, and invest more in in-house expertise to analyze it. 'Anytime you increase costs for insurers, those costs get borne … by the policyholders,' Espie added. 'Over time, that is going to make insurance more expensive for homeowners and business owners.' Breakdowns in the collection and reliability of federal data could present other, novel challenges. So-called parametric risk products, which issue payouts based on factors like wind speed or barometric pressure, have become increasingly popular with local governments, individual property owners, and reinsurance companies that provide insurance to insurers in order to offset their own risk. Without reliable and objective data, it could be difficult to determine whether those thresholds have been reached. Private climate risk modelers are also increasingly leaning on large language models, or LLMs, in order to predict the behavior of storms and analyze risk, leading companies like Microsoft, Google, and Nvidia to roll out their own AI-branded forecasting models. While LLMs have helped spur some promising advances in predicting the weather, these products are still generally based on data generated by the public sector. If that data ceases to exist—or if it becomes outdated and unreliable due to cuts—then proprietary modeling could start to break down in ways that may not be immediately obvious to the customers who use those products, or to the researchers unable to assess how their results are tabulated. 'AI is all well and good, but you still need good-quality inputs,' Condon told me. 'AI can only be a supplement, not a replacement.' Even before Trump 2.0, government researchers struggled to assess America's vulnerability to extreme weather as temperatures rise. That's partially because predictive modeling is based on relatively small historical datasets, and rising temperatures are changing how extreme weather behaves in unpredictable ways. Storms are slower and dump more rain, while wildfires burn hotter, faster, and at unusual times of year. In its 2023 report on extreme weather risk, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology urged that more coordination between NOAA, FEMA, and other federal agencies was needed to provide 'more accurate and actionable information to guide decision-making and policy at all levels,' and remedy the 'lack of high-quality estimates of extreme weather probabilities for most locations and types of events.' The council also explicitly noted the limitations of private-sector climate risk modeling, and the importance of interagency coordination for improving its reliability. 'While a burgeoning industry is beginning to provide climate risk information, much of this is of questionable quality,' the report notes, 'either because it has not been transparently skill-scored to show that it can predict past events, or because it relies on methods that have been shown by the academic literature to have significant bias.' The stakes of accurate climate data are enormously high. As traditional mortgage lenders deny loans to prospective buyers in higher-risk areas, online 'fintech' lenders have taken the opposite approach, offering financing on terms that may undercount the risk certain properties face from wildfires and other hazards. To offset their own risk, some lenders have also begun selling off their riskier mortgages, including in coastal areas, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A coming wave of climate-related foreclosures—which First Street predicts could soar 380 percent over the coming decade, and account for up to 30 percent of foreclosures—threatens not just housing but, potentially, the financial system more broadly. The Trump administration is waging war on climate and extreme weather data as that information becomes increasingly valuable to the insurance and real estate sectors. With few realistic alternatives to the critical research performed by NOAA, NASA, and other federal agencies, it won't be developers and underwriters, but homeowners and renters, who pay the steepest costs for the White House's climate denial.
Straits Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
Youths sue Trump over US climate orders
A group of 22 young Americans are arguing that executive orders from US President Donald Trump to expand fossil fuel development and dismantle climate protections violate their right to life, safety and health. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - Twenty-two young Americans sued the Trump administration on May 29, arguing that its executive orders to expand fossil fuel development and dismantle climate protections violate their fundamental rights to life and liberty. The plaintiffs – primarily from Montana, where the case was filed in a federal court, along with others from Hawaii, Oregon, California and Florida – named President Donald Trump and numerous federal agencies in their lawsuit. The case targets executive orders that declared a 'National Energy Emergency' and directed agencies to 'unleash American energy' by accelerating oil, gas, and coal extraction on public lands while blocking clean energy projects. It also argues the administration has unlawfully suppressed public access to federal climate science. 'These youth are standing up to challenge those executive orders as violating their rights to life, safety and health,' Ms Andrea Rodgers, a lawyer with the nonprofit Our Children's Trust, which brought the case, told AFP. She added that the lawsuit builds on recent state-level victories. In Montana, a judge ruled in 2023 in favor of youth plaintiffs that government's decision to limit analysis of environmental factors when deciding oil and gas permits violated their right to a clean environment. In Hawaii, a 2024 settlement with youth activists committed the state to accelerate decarbonisation of its transport sector to protect their right to a healthy climate. At the federal level, however, youth-led climate lawsuits have yet to prevail. The most prominent, Juliana versus the US, was filed in 2015 and dismissed in 2024. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal earlier this year. Ms Rodgers said the new case, Lighthiser versus the US, differs in a key way: while Juliana relied on an implied right to a safe climate, Lighthiser claims an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. Lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser, 19, from Livingston, Montana, says her life has been disrupted by climate-driven floods that damaged roads and bridges, forcing her family to relocate. Wildfires and heat waves have also affected her health and caused deep anxiety about the future, the complaint adds. Beyond seeking to overturn executive orders that promote fossil fuel drilling, the plaintiffs want to restore congressionally mandated climate science efforts, including the National Climate Assessment. The Trump administration recently dismissed its roughly 400-member author team. Some critics argue these issues should be left to elected officials – not the courts. But Ms Rodgers countered: 'There's really a place for all three branches of government to get involved in resolving the climate crisis.' 'That's not to say the judiciary should set policy – but it must ensure the political branches act within their constitutional lane. That's what we're asking the court to do here.' AFP Find out more about climate change and how it could affect you on the ST microsite here.
Free Malaysia Today
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
US climate assessment thrown into doubt as Trump dismisses authors
The decision marked the latest flashpoint in Donald Trump's extensive efforts to reshape the US scientific landscape. (AP pic) WASHINGTON : President Donald Trump's administration on Monday disbanded the authors of the US' premier climate report, a move scientists said threatens to derail a critical assessment mandated by Congress and vital to the nation's preparedness against global warming. In an email sent to contributors of the Sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA6), the administration said the report's 'scope' was being 'reevaluated' and informed participants they were being 'released from their roles,' with no timeline offered for potential reengagement. The decision follows mass firings earlier this month at the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the federal body overseeing the congressionally required report, and marks the latest flashpoint in Trump's sweeping efforts to reshape the federal government, particularly in the realm of science. Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a former author on NCA6's chapter on coastal impacts, blasted the move as reckless and politically motivated. 'Today, the Trump administration senselessly took a hatchet to a crucial and comprehensive US climate science report by dismissing its authors without cause or a plan,' Cleetus said in a statement. 'Trying to bury this report won't alter the scientific facts one bit, but without this information, our country risks flying blind into a world made more dangerous by human-caused climate change.' The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Other authors also took to social media to confirm they had received identical notices, expressing frustration and alarm over the unprecedented disruption of the scientific process. Since returning to office, Trump has embarked on an aggressive overhaul of federal institutions, firing thousands of civil servants, including climate scientists and public health experts. It has also steered agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Institutes of Health away from climate and environmental research. The disruption of NCA6 comes at a perilous time: global temperatures have begun to breach 1.5C of warming above preindustrial levels, according to recent international analyses, fuelling worsening wildfires, droughts, floods, and storms across the US. The National Climate Assessment, first published in 2000, is a cornerstone of US government climate understanding, synthesising input from federal agencies and hundreds of external scientists. Previous iterations have warned in stark terms of mounting risks to America's economy, infrastructure, and health if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed. While not directly prescriptive on policy, the reports have served as critical guideposts for lawmakers, businesses, and local governments planning climate resilience measures. Under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, the federal government is legally obligated to deliver the climate assessment to Congress and the president. It remains unclear whether the administration's actions will ultimately delay, compromise, or cancel the report entirely.
Japan Today
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
U.S. climate agency stops tracking costly natural disasters
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is one of several US climate agencies facing steep funding cuts by President Donald Trump's administration U.S. President Donald Trump's administration will stop updating a long-running database of costly climate and weather disasters as part of its deep cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The database, which spans the years 1980-2024, has allowed researchers, the media and the public to keep a tally of events ranging from wildfires to hurricanes that caused losses exceeding $1 billion, adjusted for inflation. "In alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information will no longer be updating the Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters product," a banner on the landing page said. Past years will remain archived. From 1980 to 2024, the United States experienced 403 weather and climate disasters with damages exceeding $1 billion each, adjusted to 2024 dollars. The cumulative cost of these events surpassed $2.9 trillion. A time-series chart shows that while there is year-to-year variation, the overall number of billion-dollar disasters is rising sharply, driven by climate destabilization linked to fossil fuel emissions. "Hiding many billions in costs is Trump's latest move to leave Americans in the dark about climate disasters," said Maya Golden-Krasner of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "Trump's climate agenda is to leave people unsafe and unprepared while oil companies pocket record profits," Golden-Krasner added. "The pressure is on for leaders with integrity to keep counting the costs of climate disasters and hold polluters accountable for the damage." Trump, who withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement on day one of his second term, has pursued aggressive rollbacks of climate-focused institutions. His administration appears to be following "Project 2025," a blueprint authored by right-wing think tanks that labels NOAA a key source of "climate alarmism." NOAA has since undergone mass layoffs affecting roughly 20 percent of its workforce, and the White House is seeking to slash the agency's annual budget by $1.5 billion -- nearly a quarter of its total funding. The move follows another major blow to federal climate science: the dismissal of more than 400 authors behind the National Climate Assessment, a report mandated by Congress and considered the government's foremost climate evaluation. © 2025 AFP
eNCA
09-05-2025
- Politics
- eNCA
US climate agency stops tracking costly natural disasters
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump's administration will stop updating a long-running database of costly climate and weather disasters as part of its deep cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The database, which spans the years 1980-2024, has allowed researchers, the media and the public to keep a tally of events ranging from wildfires to hurricanes that caused losses exceeding $1-billion, adjusted for inflation. "In alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information will no longer be updating the Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters product," a banner on the landing page said. Past years will remain archived. From 1980 to 2024, the United States experienced 403 weather and climate disasters with damages exceeding $1-billion each, adjusted to 2024 dollars. The cumulative cost of these events surpassed $2.9-trillion. A time-series chart shows that while there is year-to-year variation, the overall number of billion-dollar disasters is rising sharply, driven by climate destabilisation linked to fossil fuel emissions. "Hiding many billions in costs is Trump's latest move to leave Americans in the dark about climate disasters," said Maya Golden-Krasner of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "Trump's climate agenda is to leave people unsafe and unprepared while oil companies pocket record profits," Golden-Krasner added. "The pressure is on for leaders with integrity to keep counting the costs of climate disasters and hold polluters accountable for the damage." Trump, who withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement on day one of his second term, has pursued aggressive rollbacks of climate-focused institutions. His administration appears to be following "Project 2025," a blueprint authored by right-wing think tanks that labels NOAA a key source of "climate alarmism." NOAA has since undergone mass layoffs affecting roughly 20 percent of its workforce, and the White House is seeking to slash the agency's annual budget by $1.5-billion -- nearly a quarter of its total funding. The move follows another major blow to federal climate science: the dismissal of more than 400 authors behind the National Climate Assessment, a report mandated by Congress and considered the government's foremost climate evaluation.
