Trump killed a crucial disaster database. This nonprofit just saved it. – grist.org

Report on the Privatization of Climate Disaster Data and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Federal Discontinuation of Climate Data Services

In a move impacting national progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the U.S. federal administration has ceased updating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) billion-dollar disaster database. This action is part of a wider trend of deleting climate data and reducing federal resources for monitoring climate change impacts. The official justification cited evolving priorities and staffing changes. This decision directly challenges the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by reducing the transparency and accountability of governmental bodies responsible for providing critical public information.

Civil Society and Sub-National Response: A Partnership for the Goals

In response to the data void, a coalition of non-profits, state-level governments, and independent scientists has emerged, demonstrating a commitment to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). These organizations are working to preserve and continue the vital work of climate data collection and analysis.

• Climate Central: This non-profit has resurrected the billion-dollar disaster database, hiring the former NOAA climatologist who led the project, Adam Smith.
• Environmental Data Governance Initiative: This group tracks the deletion of federal climate data.
• Other Non-Profits: Organizations such as Public Environmental Data Partners, The Data Center, and the Climate Data Collaborative are contributing to what is described as an ad-hoc parallel system for tracking climate risks.
• State Governments: States like California are developing their own resources, such as a public wildfire catastrophe model, to manage climate-related hazards locally.

The reinstated database by Climate Central reveals that in the first six months of 2025, the U.S. experienced 14 weather and climate disasters costing over one billion dollars each, for a total of $101.4 billion. This figure is significantly above the annual average of nine such events.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

The removal of federal oversight on climate disaster data has profound implications for the achievement of several key SDGs. The lack of reliable, centralized data undermines evidence-based policymaking and national resilience efforts.

1. SDG 13: Climate Action: The discontinuation of the database directly obstructs efforts to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards (Target 13.1). Without consistent tracking of the frequency and cost of disasters, it becomes more difficult to formulate effective national strategies for climate change adaptation and impact reduction.
2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: Local and state authorities rely on this data to make informed decisions about building resilient infrastructure, a core component of Target 11.5 (reduce the economic losses and number of people affected by disasters). The case of Asheville, North Carolina, using the database to justify rebuilding a dam that later withstood Hurricane Helene, exemplifies the tool’s importance in creating safer communities.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The removal of public access to government-collected data undermines the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (Target 16.6). While civil society’s response is commendable, policy advocates stress that the primary responsibility for collecting and maintaining such critical national data should reside with the government to ensure continuity and authority.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • The article is fundamentally about climate change, its impacts, and the political and institutional responses to it. It discusses the increasing frequency and cost of “billion-dollar weather and climate disasters,” the need for data to understand and combat these impacts, and the rollback of climate action by the federal government.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • The article connects climate disasters to local communities. It highlights how data, like the billion-dollar disaster database, is essential for local and state authorities to “make the case for building resilient infrastructure,” citing the specific example of Asheville, North Carolina, using the tool to inform a dam rebuilding project.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • This goal is addressed through the article’s focus on institutional accountability and public access to information. It describes the failure of a federal institution (NOAA) to maintain a vital public resource due to “political whim” and the administration’s broader effort of “taking down websites” and deleting data, which undermines transparent governance and public access to information.

4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The article showcases the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships as a direct response to the gap left by the government. It describes a “patchwork of nonprofits and states” and names organizations like Climate Central, Public Environmental Data Partners, and the Climate Data Collaborative that are working together to “re-establish a baseline” and preserve critical climate data.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters. The article directly addresses this by discussing the need for data to “build a more robust, resilient future” and citing how officials in Asheville used the database to build resilient infrastructure (a dam) that protected the community during a hurricane.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change. The database is described as a tool that “allowed policymakers, insurers, and regular people to track” disaster costs, thereby raising awareness and building capacity. The deletion of the database represents a loss of this institutional capacity, which nonprofits are now trying to restore.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.5: Significantly reduce the number of deaths and people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses caused by disasters. The article’s central focus is on tracking the economic losses from disasters, explicitly stating that in the first six months of 2025, there were “14 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters costing $101.4 billion.” Tracking these losses is the first step toward reducing them.
   • Target 11.b: Increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards adaptation to climate change and disaster risk reduction. The example of Asheville, North Carolina, using the database to inform its decision to rebuild a dam is a direct illustration of a city implementing a plan for disaster risk reduction based on available data.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article critiques the lack of transparency and accountability when NOAA discontinued the database “in alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes,” which is described as being subject to “political whim.”
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information. The core issue of the article is the threat to public access to information, highlighted by the administration’s actions of “deletes climate data,” “taking down websites,” and shuttering resources that track climate impacts.

4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.16: Enhance partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge and expertise. The article provides a clear example of this target in action, where a “patchwork of nonprofits and states is trying to fill the gap” left by the federal government. Climate Central hiring the former NOAA lead for the database to resurrect it is a specific instance of mobilizing expertise and sharing knowledge.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 13 & 11 (Climate Action & Sustainable Cities)

   • Indicator: The number and cost of billion-dollar disasters. The article explicitly provides this data: “In the first six months of 2025, the nation recorded 14 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters costing $101.4 billion.” This serves as a direct measure of the economic losses from disasters (relevant to Target 11.5) and the scale of climate-related hazards (relevant to Target 13.1).
   • Indicator: The use of climate data for local infrastructure planning. The article implies this indicator through the Asheville example, where officials “depended upon the tool when deciding to rebuild the dam at North Fork Reservoir.” This demonstrates the implementation of local disaster risk reduction strategies (relevant to Target 11.b).

2. For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   • Indicator: Public availability and accessibility of government-held climate data. The entire article revolves around this indicator. The discontinuation of the NOAA database and the “taking down websites” represent negative progress, while the resurrection of the database by Climate Central represents positive progress, albeit outside of government channels. This is a direct measure for Target 16.10.

3. For SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

   • Indicator: The existence of multi-stakeholder collaborations for data preservation and dissemination. The article implies this by describing the “patchwork of nonprofits and states” creating an “ad-hoc parallel system.” The mention of specific entities like Climate Central, Public Environmental Data Partners, The Data Center, and state-level efforts in California serve as examples of these partnerships in action (relevant to Target 17.16).

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: grist.org