Part 5 in a series of letters to Trump voters

2025 got off to a terrible start when a series of devastating wildfires erupted in Los Angeles.  As you probably know, then President-elect Trump placed the blame on California Governor Gavin Newsom, LA Mayor Karen Bass, and other Democrats. The list of their failures includes not sending water to Southern California, neglect of forest management and reduction of fire fuels, preoccupation with protecting the Delta smelt, preoccupation with DEI hiring, cutting state and local fire-fighting budgets, and no water in fire hydrants.  

As you also probably know, Trump was taken to task by the mainstream media.  He was criticized for spreading falsehoods and misinformation regarding the cause of the fires and who should bear the blame. The gist of these accounts is that the wildfires were precipitated by climate change, and that 100 mile per hour Santa Ana winds made the fires impossible to combat in the early going.  In case you are interested, here are links to some of these media accounts: CNN, Cal Matters, NBC News, and FactCheck.org.    

As Trump voters, I suspect that you discount these accounts as “lamestream media” and “fake news.”  You know that Trump repeatedly calls human-caused climate change a “hoax.”  A 2023 survey by Public Religion Research Institute (PRII) found that only 28% of Republicans believe that climate change is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. To the extent Republicans believe in climate change, 50% believe that climate change is mostly caused by natural patterns in the earth’s environment.  And, finally, 20% of Republicans don’t believe there is solid evidence that climate change is even happening.

While you are skeptical about climate change—and especially human-caused climate change—you might be interested to know that a substantial majority of Americans have a different view.  The survey cited above found that 61% of Americans believe climate change is caused mostly by human activity. This includes 83% of Democrats and 64% of Independents. Only 28% of Americans believe that climate change is mostly caused by natural patterns.  And only 10% of Americans believe there is no solid evidence that climate change is happening.  Finally, you might also be interested to know that younger Republicans are far more likely than older ones to say human activity contributes to climate change.

While there is political gridlock over the primary cause of climate change, conditions in the world and the US are seriously worsening. In recent decades extreme weather events and natural disasters have become more frequent and more intense. And the costs involved for the federal government, states, local jurisdictions, and citizens have also skyrocketed.  Whether these events and disasters are due to human-caused climate change or climate change caused by natural patterns shouldn’t be a sticking point. Rather, because the problems are worsening so dramatically, it’s imperative that we resolve our differences and come together on solutions. 

In this article we’ll focus on the numbers and trends regarding temperature change, weather events, and natural disasters. We’ll gain a better understanding of the frequency, intensity, and costs involved when it comes to wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tornados, freezes, droughts, and severe storms. In so doing we can gain insight into how we might resolve our differences over the cause of climate change. In short, do we always need to agree on the definitive cause of climate change before we act?

The evidence is undeniable that Earth and the United States are rapidly warming.

NASA scientists and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently confirmed that 2024, was the warmest year on record for earth, passing the record of 2023. Earth’s 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade.  NOAA also found that 2024 was the warmest year ever for the United States.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recently released a report confirming that, “2023 was the warmest year on record for earth, with the global average near-surface temperature at 1.45 °Celsius (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.12 °C) above the pre-industrial baseline. It was the warmest ten-year period on record.”

The evidence is also undeniable that a warming Earth contributes to weather events and natural disasters in several ways. 

Here are some of the well-documented ways that a warming Earth contributes to weather events and natural disasters:

• Higher surface temperatures contribute to more droughts and intense storms.
• Increasing temperatures and warmer oceans/seas result in more water vapor evaporating into the air, fueling hurricanes and very heavy rain.
• Warming oceans increase the frequency and intensity of tropical storms.
• A warming Earth exacerbates extreme rainfall and flooding.
• Some extreme weather events are occurring more often or becoming more intense due to Earth’s increase in temperature.

In support of the above summary, I invite you to review the following links:  The Influence of Climate Change on Extreme Environmental Events, How Can Climate Change Affect Natural Disasters?, Is Climate Change Causing More Extreme Weather?, Climate and weather-related Disasters surge  5-fold over 50 years, but early warnings save lives, and Global warming is contributing to extreme weather events

Focusing on the United States, the evidence is undeniable that weather events and natural disasters are becoming more frequent and costly since 1980, and especially since 2010. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains an interactive database of Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.  Such events include flooding, wildfires, freezes, severe storms, drought, tropical cyclones, and winter storms.  The database goes back to 1980 and tracks both the frequency and cost of weather and climate disasters that exceed $1 billion.  The cost figures are displayed both in inflation-adjusted and nominal dollars.  While I urge you to check out this very informative database, let me summarize some of the eye-popping numbers.   

Going back to 1980, the US has suffered 403 separate weather and climate disasters where overall damages reached or exceeded $1 billion (costs adjusted to 2024 dollars using the Consumer Price Index).  The total cost of these 403 events exceeds $2.915 trillion! 

In terms of the frequency of weather and climate disasters exceeding $1 billion, the average number per year during this 45-year period (1980-2024) is 9.  But the frequency of such events has especially taken off since 2010.  Take a look at the two charts below:

As you can see, since 2010, 246 of the 403 events (61%) occurred during this 15-year period.  Thus, three fifths of the events happened in the most recent 15 years of the 45-year period.  And the six years with the most events occurred since 2017 (18 events in 2022, 19 events in 2017, 20 events in 2021, 22 events in 2020, 28 events in 2023, and 27 events in 2024). 

In addition to the escalating costs of weather events and natural disasters, the federal government and states are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on prevention and mitigation programs. 

In recent years the federal government, states, and local jurisdictions have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in efforts to prevent and mitigate extreme weather events and natural disasters.  Without attempting to be exhaustive, here are some of efforts and related expenditures involved:

• The federal government and states have launched programs to thin forests, reduce fire fuels, conduct prescribed burns, and assist communities and homeowners in hardening their properties. The programs have strained state budgets in recent years.  For more specifics on programs and costs please see this report from Pew Charitable Trusts and the California Governor’s Office.
• At the federal level, both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act include various funding streams for cities to strengthen their infrastructure and better prepare for extreme weather events like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods.  For more specifics, see this Guide.
• The federal government expanded funding for flood adaptation and flood prevention.  For more specifics, see this report from the Congressional Budget Office.
• In spite of recent Budget cuts, the state of California continues to prioritize water and climate programs to prepare for and mitigate extreme weather events and natural disasters.  In 2021 and 2022, the state allocated the historic sum of $16.3 billion for these efforts. For specifics, see this report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).
• The federal government and states have launched drought and water scarcity initiatives to expand and better conserve water resources.  The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $8.3 billion for water reclamation and infrastructure projects, and the Inflation Reduction Act provided $4.6 billion to address drought in the West and improve water security.  For more details, see this report from the US Department of Interior.
• At the ballot box, California and other states have approved bond measures to address water scarcity, wildfire prevention, and other climate projects.  Most recently, California passed at $10 billion bond (Proposition 4, November 2024).  For more information, see this article from Cal Matters and this article from the Nature Conservancy.

As weather events and natural disasters become more frequent, intense, and costly to governments, we citizens also face much higher costs for homeowner’s insurance and utilities, assuming we can even find insurance.

Going back 10 to 15 years, the property insurance market began to destabilize as the number of weather events and natural disasters started to spike.  Insurers were paying out record amounts (e.g., $121 billion in 2021, and $125 billion in 2022) while the 10-year average pay out was $81 billion).  Insurers were forced to raise their rates.  Some homeowners had their rates quadruple in a matter of 6 to 8 years.  

In some states, such as California (wildfires), Florida (hurricanes and floods), and Louisiana (hurricanes and floods) many insurers have left the market; and the list of states is growing. 

The problem of sky-high insurance costs remains unsolved. California initiated the “FAIR Plan.” This is an insurance program backed by the state of California for property owners who cannot find coverage in the private market.  However, coverage tends to be less extensive and more expensive than plans on the private market.  Also, the FAIR Plan does not have sufficient resources to pay for all its claims. 

Another California solution, which could spread nationwide, is to allow insurers to base premiums on “catastrophe models.” This would allow premiums to be based on projected future payouts in addition past claims.  In return for this new authority, insurers must agree to re-enter the market and write new policies. This initiative, led by the California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, is still at least a few months away from implementation.  The problem with this solution, however, is that analysts predict the use of catastrophic modeling could raise insurance premiums by 40% on average. In fire-prone areas, the increases could be up to 100% or more.

Another problem driving up insurance costs is that many insurers separate homeowner insurance from flood insurance.  In Florida, more than half of insurance claims regarding Hurricanes Helene and Milton were rejected because they were found to caused by flooding that was not covered by the homeowner policy.  

As you and most Americans know, weather events and natural disasters have also wreaked havoc on your monthly utility bills. Here in California, the State’s Legislative Analyst just released a report documenting how wildfire prevention and climate programs are driving up monthly energy bills.  On average, bills have gone up nearly 50% since 2019.  As to the country as a whole, CNET reports 60% of American adults say they believe climate change has increased how much they pay for home energy. Only 13% disagreed, while 27% were unsure.

Weather events and natural disasters do not discriminate on the basis of state lines or the political party controlling a state; however, in our era of hyper-partisan politics, politicians and their political parties are often wrongfully blamed regarding these events.

Below I display two graphics from NOAA’s database.  One depicts the frequency of $1 billion-plus weather events and natural disasters by state, and the other depicts the cost by state. 

As you can see, the highest frequency for such events is concentrated in the south-eastern states, including especially, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and the Carolinas.  As to costs, the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Florida lead the way, with California, North Carolina, New York, and Colorado in the next tier. 

These results shouldn’t surprise us because we know that weather events and natural disasters simply tend to happen in these states. Also, because states like Texas, Florida, California, and New York are highly populated, it’s reasonable that events in these states are going to be more costly. 

Weather events and natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more costly all around the globe and all around the United States. They don’t single out a state simply because it is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. 

However, in the world of hyper-partisan politics Democrats sometimes argue that Republican-controlled states have failed to adequately prepare for hurricanes, tornados, floods, torrential rains and freezes. After all, Republican-controlled states have the most of such events, and costs are extreme in many Republican states.  In the same vein, Republicans sometimes argue that Democrat-controlled states have failed to adequately prepare for wildfires, droughts, and earthquakes. After all, they can point to huge costs in California, Colorado, New York, and other Democrat-controlled states.  

But blaming political parties and state governments because a state is beset with frequent and expensive weather events and natural disasters ignores the critical issue of causation. If we are to blame a political party or politician for failing to prevent or mitigate a particular weather event or natural disaster, we must be prepared to prove our case to the people. False accusations, misinformation, and unsupported allegations are not proof.  Instead, the public needs to be provided with hard evidence of the party’s or politician’s negligence.  And, before we the people pass judgment, we need to weigh the evidence from both sides.  

Given the devastation from weather events and natural disasters, we must set aside partisan politics, resolve our differences over the cause of climate change, and press for mutually agreeable solutions.

There is no doubt that the Earth and the US are warming and that we are experiencing extreme weather events and natural disasters at increasing rates, intensity, and cost. For too long we have taken extreme positions rooted in hyper-partisan politics.  On one side, global warming and climate change is a “hoax.”  Natural changes in the earth’s environment are solely responsible for warming, weather events, and natural disasters.  Human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, is not to blame; and Democrats are foisting their expensive and ineffective solutions on Americans. On the other side, global warming and climate change are almost exclusively caused by human activity, and we are not doing enough to avoid worsening conditions.  Republicans are in denial about this reality. Instead they assert that Democrats are responsible for weather events and natural disasters because of failed policies, ineptness and mismanagement. 

There is compelling evidence that extreme weather events and natural disasters are more frequent, intense, and costly to all levels of government. In addition, the problem has reached into our pocketbooks in terms of utility and insurance costs. It’s thus imperative that we break out of hyper-partisan behaviors that leave us fighting instead of problem solving. We need to find a way forward where we can harmonize our differing points of view regarding the cause of climate change. Surely there are at least some solutions that we can agree upon. 

Rather than continuing to fight over whether climate change is mostly caused by natural changes or mostly caused by human activity, we should at least agree to work on solutions that enable us to live with and adapt to worsening weather events and natural disasters.

Let me quote from materials on climate change from the United Nations:

“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.”

More particularly, even climate scientists agree that natural changes in the environment can contribute to global warming.  They point to variations in solar activity (changes in the sun’s energy output), volcanic eruptions, shifts in Earth’s orbit, changes in ocean currents, and tectonic plate movements.

In recent decades these scientists have almost universally concluded that human activities are responsible for virtually all global warming over the last 200 years.  But is it necessary for all political parties to accept this conclusion as a condition for acting on climate change, weather events, and natural disasters?  I would argue the answer is “no.” Instead, we should bifurcate the discussion. When our quest is to reverse, halt, or slow climate change, we obviously need to be concerned about what is causing it. On the other hand, when our quest is to enable us to live with and adapt to climate change, we don’t necessarily have to know what is causing it.

If a wildfire breaks out, we need to put it out regardless of whether the climate change that exacerbated it was caused by natural changes in the environment or too much burning of fossil fuels (human activity).  We need to manage forests, reduce fire fuel, conduct prescribed burns, and harden our communities and homes regardless of whether the fire was worsened by natural changes or human activity.

On the other hand, if we want to press for solutions that will reverse, halt, or slow climate change, then the debate about cause becomes relevant. For instance, the human activity of burning fossil fuels is argued to be a key contributor to global warming. Thus, if we seek to phase out gas-powered vehicles and promote electric vehicles, this solution can’t pass unless there are enough votes supporting the notion that burning fossil fuels (human activity) must be reduced.

Admittedly, bifurcating the discussion is a political compromise. It says that when it comes to working on efforts to live with and adapt to climate change, there ought to be widespread bipartisan support. We should be able to move quickly on such initiatives. On the other hand, when it comes to reversing or arresting climate change, this brings the question of human-caused global warming into play. In order to prevail the argument must be won and votes secured.

Applying this bifurcated approach, it’s clear there are numerous mutually agreeable solutions that would enable us to address the devastating effects of weather events and natural disasters.

Without attempting to be exhaustive, the list of solutions below can be pursued to enable us to live with and adapt to climate change.  Each of these solutions has drawn support from both Republicans and Democrats.

• There is bipartisan support for managing forests and vegetation, removing fire fuels, conducting prescribed burns, and hardening our communities and homes against wildfires.
• There is bipartisan support for reinforcing levies and protecting our communities and homes from floods.
• There is bipartisan support for retrofitting our homes and businesses to make them more energy efficient and more resistant to extreme weather events.
• There is bipartisan support for tackling the high costs of insurance and utilities that confront homeowners and renters.
• There is bipartisan support for building more reservoirs and investing in desalination.
• There is bipartisan support for expanding renewable energy sources such as solar, hydroelectric, and wind.

As to matters of disagreement regarding climate change—and there are many—we should find ways to remain respectful regarding these differences and keep the channels of communication open.

The substantial majority of Americans agree with climate scientists that climate change is mostly caused by human activity. Thus, reducing activities that increase global warming is required if we are to have any hope of reversing or even stabilizing global warming. However, I respect that many Republicans (and you who voted for Trump) have a different point of view. The debate will be fought out through our political processes, and we can all expect there will be victories and defeats along the way.  Ideally, we can shed our hyper-partisan politics and have a respectful debate on this matter. We should be able to agree to disagree, without being disagreeable.

As Trump comes into office, he will almost certainly take several actions that tens of millions of Americas (myself included) will oppose:

• He will withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement
• He will cancel the Biden Administration’s fuel efficiency standards for gas-powered vehicles
• He will support reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases and provide waivers to states (especially California) under the Clean Air Act
• He and Congress will cut funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and roll back Biden’s clean energy policies, such as electric vehicle tax credits
• He will expand oil drilling and fracking in order to ramp up the production of fossil fuels
• He may withhold or put strings on disaster funding provided to California to address the recent wildfires

These actions are problematic because most will result in increased burning of fossil fuels and contribute to even greater warming. This unfortunately, will translate into weather events and natural disasters that are even more frequent, intense, and costly.  But opposing these actions doesn’t mean that I hate the President, Congressional Republicans, and anyone who supports these actions. Instead, I will work within our political system to defeat, challenge and neutralize them.  I am hopeful that growing numbers of Republicans will change their minds about human activity being the primary driver of climate change and global warming. But I won’t personally attack and condemn someone simply because they support the actions. I hope you feel the same way.

As to our politicians, I’m not so sanguine. We’ll probably see a lot of blame and condemnation being passed along. We can also count on a lot of misinformation and false narratives. It’s sad that the objective of winning elections and gaining control seems to be more important than working together and solving problems. But I’m hoping we the people will stay above the fray.

Epilogue

In the final analysis we are already suffering serious consequences because of climate change, regardless of cause.  We are already being forced to live with and adapt to climate change. And it is irreversible on the timescale of humans alive today. But not acting will make the consequences even worse, meaning it’s never too late to act.  Because we all care for our children and our children’s children, it’s imperative that we be good stewards for the world they will live in.