The Guardian article can be found here.
The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I'm Michael Dunne. The impacts from climate change are many massive health issues, among the global population, destruction of habitat and the creation of millions of climate refugees. And perhaps most understandable and immediate for all, the staggering cost. 2025, which still has two months left to go, is already the most expensive year on record in the US for the costs associated with climate related disasters. Today, on the show, you'll hear from a writer at The Guardian whose recent article details just how impossibly expensive climate change is becoming in the US, and a local scientist who tracks what's happening right here in Oregon, from continuously growing hurricanes to wildfires of epic scale, the impacts of climate change are a monetary burden that simply cannot be sustained by local, state, national and international entities. Oliver Milman, an environmental reporter with The Guardian, thanks so much for coming on and talking to us.
OLIVER MILMAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I enjoyed your article titled “Climate disasters in first half of 2025, costliest ever on record.” Go ahead and tell our audience just generally about your story and what you found.
OLIVER MILMAN: So essentially, there's been a tracker of the costliest disasters that hit the United States that the federal government ran from about 1980 onwards, and essentially made a tally of all the major wildfires, storms, floods, hurricanes and other such disasters that caused at least $1 billion in damages. And this, this endeavor, as I said, lasted since 1980 and went up until, lasted until the Trump administration came in, and essentially, they froze this initiative through NOAA, which is the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, they decided to stop reporting these major disasters, which, of course, are being worsened by the climate crisis. They decided to do that this spring, and so the database of these disasters has been frozen on the federal government's websites since the end of last year. Hasn't been updated since then, Climate Central, a kind of nonprofit Climate Group, has decided to kind of take this up, though, and they've resurrected this database, headed by the man who used to run the billion-dollar database for NOAA, a man called Adam Smith. And they've just come up with their kind of first findings. And they've discovered the first six months of this year was the costliest on record for disasters in the US, $100 billion in damages, and that's through lost homes, businesses, highways, infrastructure, lost business expenses and lost revenue and so on. And so, it's higher than any other six-month period since this sort of tracking was first started in 1980.
MICHAEL DUNNE: As your article pointed out, the Los Angeles fires were so devastating. And I think it's interesting, you just pointed out, usually hurricanes are the winners in this inglorious list because of the fact that they cover such a huge area? Does it kind of point to just how ferocious the LA fires were to be so damaging, so costly in especially when you compare them to hurricanes in a pretty small geographic area?
OLIVER MILMAN: Yeah, I think we're seeing this more and more. The impacts of wildfire are really growing as a risk to people's health, their livelihoods and their property. You kind of have this issue, particularly on the West Coast. You'll know well the issues of wildfire, direct wildfire damage, but also the smoke. Hundreds of people died from the Los Angeles wildfire in the aftermath, not from being burned to death, but because of the smoke. And that's obviously smoke that can reach, you know, hundreds or 1000s of miles. And so that's becoming a larger issue for many people, particularly on the West Coast. Yeah, the LA wildfires were enormous, $61 billion in damages. It's, it's. The only event in the top 10 costliest disasters in your history that isn't a hurricane, the LA wildfires is the 10th costliest event that's ever happened. So, it's a real testimony to how ferocious and how widespread these wildfires were, and obviously where they happened in the area of Los Angeles with some very expensive properties.
MICHAEL DUNNE: And that kind of gets to my next point is the fact that not only does it appear that obviously storms and disasters related to climate change getting worse on their own because of the ferocity, but obviously, you know, they're starting to hit areas like LA, where you have huge, you know, costs associated with housing prices and construction and that sort of a thing. It seems like this is going to become a situation, and I want to hear from you where costs are just going to keep going up and up and up.
OLIVER MILMAN: Yeah, I think, I think that's right. I mean, you have several factors at play here. I mean, I think climate change is a big one. We're getting bigger and more ferocious storms. We're getting more heat waves. Obviously, we're getting more torrential downpours from rainfall, which is causing Bigger, bigger floods. But it's not the only factor we have. Changing demographics. We have, you know, population shifts, and by and large, people are moving in the US to places that are becoming riskier because of climate change. So, you know, you see this shift towards places like Florida, which is, you know, very prone to hurricanes and floods, you see this shift to the US southwest, where we're getting kind of extreme heat and other such impacts. So, I think population trends are a really important aspect of this. And then the third thing is our preparedness. How well is the United States adapting to these conditions, and there's a lot of infrastructure out there that's, you know, aging, crumbling hasn't been updated, certainly not updated for a future warming world in which these events are becoming more and more extreme. So, there's a kind of confluence of different factors going on here.
MICHAEL DUNNE: You know, I always think when you talk about costs associated with climate disasters, one of the factors, and certainly here on the West Coast it's becoming very apparent, is there's a real fear that homeowners, businesses may not be able to even get insurance for their properties because of insurance companies seeing areas like the West Coast, California, Oregon, being almost uninsurable because of this. I know your article didn't necessarily talk about that in general, but talk a little bit about being an environment, environmental reporter and talking about costs, how, you know, insurance may become something that is unobtainable.
OLIVER MILMAN: Yeah, that's right, and I think that's one of the real leading impacts that people are starting to see now, is it's kind of changing. Climate change from being something that's a kind of vague, kind of far-off threat that you don't really have to think about that much, maybe something you're concerned about, but you don't really see it in your lives, unless you're directly affected by some sort of disaster. But I think insurance costs are something that's really kind of cutting through and is something that people are noticing. We've seen premiums rise across the country in recent years. In some places, some states, they've become, you know, unaffordable, sometimes after huge events, but sometimes after the smaller, repeated events that make insurers think, Okay, I can't. We can't justify continuing the kind of coverage level we have before, the premiums we've charged before. So, we're seeing, yeah, soaring insurance rates and these kinds of black holes across the country where insurance is really hard to get. And I think that's going to have a real knock-on effect in terms of where people are able to live. You obviously need insurance to get a mortgage for a home where businesses are able to relocate and so on. So, I think that's a real kind of sleeper issue in terms of our life, and then the economy and so on. I mean, say it's a very big issue.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Yeah, you talked to Climate Central, and you highlighted that this is an organization that, in some ways, is having to step into the void because the White House, like you pointed out, is not recording these disasters, necessarily. From your perspective, is an organization like Climate Central, are they one of the first of perhaps many that are going to have to pick up the slack from the federal government, kind of stepping away from not only recording but also helping to provide services and relief effort for disasters.
OLIVER MILMAN: Yes, certainly. I mean, you saw a little bit of this in Donald Trump's first term, where there were several groups kind of rushed to help preserve kind of climate data from federal government websites. That's happened again, probably on a much larger scale, because you've seen a more kind of stringent approach by the administration towards mentions of climate change, banning their use or associated terms around climate change. Within federal agencies, you've seen websites and web pages pulled down by the federal government that relate to climate change, not just this billion-dollar disaster, but other climate related content and so, yeah, groups like Climate Central have tried to kind of fill the void. Adam Smith, who is leading this work, kind of said it's like a triage situation. I mean, they can't, obviously replicate what the federal government does, but they can try and at least preserve some of this information for the public, so that the American people know what's going on, know the facts about the climate crisis and what could be done about it. So yeah, I think we're seeing a kind of effort from several groups to do this.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Oliver, my last question for you is, the White House has made no secret of the fact that they want to deemphasize, if not even slash or remove FEMA and push all of the recovery efforts and costs associated with the States. I mean, from your perspective, is that even possible, can states even fund disaster recovery to the tune of what is necessary, as your article points out, so well, that costs continue to go up and up and up?
OLIVER MILMAN: I think that depends a lot on the state. I mean, I think California, for example, could probably cope on its own, given the size of the resources at its disposal, even though, obviously California is hit by a lot of these kind of major wildfires, I think smaller states, including a lot of those states that voted enthusiastically for Donald Trump last year, will be the ones that will struggle if you're hit by a major hurricane In Louisiana or storms or other impacts in in Alabama, or some of these other states that kind of less resource than California is then, or Texas is then, then you will struggle. And I think that's kind of the reason that FEMA was set up. It was set up in the 70s because states weren't able to do all this themselves, and it kind of didn't make sense to have 50 different disaster agencies that all did their own thing and had to find the resources for these disasters every time it made sense to have a single federal body that's helped coordinate these efforts. So, there was a reason it was done. There's a reason why many states are nervous about FEMA cutting back its operations, and I think it's fortunate so far that although it's been a very costly year for disasters, it hasn't been even worse, because one of the disaster experts I spoke to for this story said, essentially, America knows that kind of people are sitting ducks for a major because FEMA just would not be able to respond in the way that has done in the past.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Great, but sobering article. Oliver Milman, who is an environmental reporter with The Guardian, thank you so much for coming on and talking about your article and talking about this issue.
OLIVER MILMAN: Thanks so much, Michael.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Now let's check in with a local expert on how climate change is shattering the bottom line, Erica Fleishman, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and a professor at Oregon State University, Erica, thank you so much once again for coming on and talking with us.
ERICA FLEISHMAN: It's a pleasure to join you. Thank you for the invitation.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Give us a sense of how climate related disasters have increased in Oregon and also increased the costs associated with dealing with such issues.
ERICA FLEISHMAN: Yeah, there are two, two connected issues that you bring up. One is the frequency of weather events that cause a lot of damage to things that people value, and the other is the direct economic cost of those events. And both are things that traditionally, NOAA has tracked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Obviously for us here in Oregon, one of the most obvious increases in a climate change disaster is, of course, wildfires. Could you kind of give us a brief primer of why they seem to be getting or are getting much more voracious?
ERICA FLEISHMAN: Yeah, there are a couple different things going on. One is that as climate changes, we are tending to see a greater number of days on which weather conditions are conducive to wildfires. So, you may have hot, dry conditions and vegetation that is quite dry and will ignite easily and allow a fire to spread easily. So, you have changes in weather conditions that are more conducive to wildfires. In Oregon, we also have expansion of human settlement into a lot of areas that are increasingly fire prone. We also have a relatively high percentage of our wildfires ignited by human activity. And that doesn't mean arson. There is arson in a small percentage of cases, but it means that anything that people do tends to create sparks, whether it's operating vehicles or operating electricity systems or burning debris or anything like that, we create a lot of sparks. So, we have conditions with respect to population and weather and longer-term climate that are making wildfires more likely to occur and to spread. And then there's also the side of how do humans place dollar values on infrastructure, on buildings, on what have you so you get this coincidence of higher likelihood of wildfire and more potential direct economic costs because of what stands in the path of the wildfire.
MICHAEL DUNNE: As you know, I talked to the author of the recent Guardian article about the fact that 2025, is the most expensive year on record for US climate change related disasters. And the author points out sort of this kind of scary X, Y axis where more climate change related issues are creating these problems, and also the White House scaling back reporting agencies that track how climate change is both occurring and also costing us. Just from your expert opinion. I mean, how dangerous is that? If at the same time that climate change issues are going up, we're scaling back our ability to quantify and understand them?
ERICA FLEISHMAN: There's less information that can inform public discussion. A lot of the costs of preparation and recovery from any type of weather-related hazards in the United States are borne by taxpayers, and my personal opinion is that taxpayers should have as much information as possible at their disposal to inform discussions about how public funds should be allocated, so without good information on what the events are, why they're happening, and what the direct and for that matter, indirect economic costs and other costs are. The public has less ability to engage in informed discussion.
MICHAEL DUNNE: You know, looking at polling data, I see oftentimes that when people are polled about, you know, their priorities, climate change and the environment isn't often towards the top, and it could be that it's too big of an issue to understand or whatever. I am wondering with reports like this Guardian article about how much it's costing us. Do you think that just looking at the sheer economic toll that climate change is having, do you think that that can help perhaps rally more public opinion and public effort to try and solve this, this crisis.
ERICA FLEISHMAN: My understanding is that people's attitudes and behaviors tend to change when they have direct personal experience. And my understanding is that when people know the cost of something. That's one thing. It's a different thing. If those costs hit one's own wallet, sure, and so I don't know how much public opinion tends to shift, or public priorities tend to shift. If costs feel somewhat remote, it might be a really large number, but it still feels remote. That's a very different story than if, then, if one's home or business is affected by a natural hazard, or if someone that that you love or you yourself are directly affected by one of these natural hazards.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Erica, my last question for you is this as the Director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and working there at Oregon State University... You know this article, it's painting a pretty dire picture, but I'm wondering, from where you sit and from the research that you do, are there causes for optimism about how we as a people, community wide, statewide, nationally, globally, are trying to combat climate change?
ERICA FLEISHMAN: I think there are, I think that many more local populations, local communities are thinking about preparation and mitigation and response to hazards and trying to develop plans that make sense for their people and their communities. There's a lot of support within Oregon for doing so. For example, we're working on this plan with many other partners. The governor's office is leading development of a plan for a resilient Oregon, and that is intended to be people centered and to address a wide array of natural hazards and equitable preparation and response to those hazards. Oregon also has been very creative in its use of things like the Oregon Health Plan to protect the health of people who have preexisting conditions in the face of increases in extreme heat and in wildfire smoke. So I am, I am hopeful that people, a lot of people, doing what they can with their homes, their families, their neighbors, will reduce the economic costs and the indirect costs, sort of the mental hardship, the physical hardship of a lot of these, a lot of these natural hazards.
MICHAEL DUNNE: She's Erica Fleishman, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and a professor at Oregon State University. Thank you so much for coming on and talking with us.
ERICA FLEISHMAN: My pleasure. Thank you so much, Michael.
MICHAEL DUNNE: That's the show for today. All episodes of Oregon On the Record are available as a podcast at KLCC.org. Tomorrow on the show, we'll talk with two reporters, one national and one local about how ICE raids are becoming more violent and becoming more purposefully antagonistic. I'm Michael Dunne, host of Oregon On The Record, thanks for listening.
