You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
More and more Americans are going to need flood insurance — yet the market is contracting.
Torrential rain drowned parts of New York State and Vermont this week, bringing “historic and catastrophic” flooding, in the words of Vermont governor Phil Scott. Now, as the immediate horror of the event recedes and evacuees journey home, many are sure to face another disaster: unrecoverable property loss and damage.
Despite the region experiencing several destructive storms in recent memory, including Hurricanes Irene in 2011, Sandy in 2012, and Ida in 2021, very few residents in the Northeast have flood insurance policies. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, only about 1% of properties in Vermont and 2% in New York State had policies in 2021 through the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, which administers most flood insurance policies in the United States.
The Northeast is not unique in this regard. The U.S. flood insurance market has been contracting since 2009, even as climate change has brought more damaging floods and storms to many parts of the country over the same time period. Even in Florida, which has the most policies in effect of any state, uninsured losses are racking up. About 13% of homes were insured for flooding during Hurricane Ian last year, and the state still incurred an estimated $10 to $17 billion in uninsured damages.
The pattern threatens to blight communities and increase economic disparities as the effects of climate change intensify. “Without a national plan to make flood insurance affordable and accessible, many more will continue to struggle after these storms,” wrote Carolyn Kousky, an expert on flood insurance at the Environmental Defense Fund, in an op-ed in The Hill after Hurricane Ian.
Flooding is already the most common and costly natural disaster in the United States, and it’s expected to get worse. Climate change will raise sea levels, putting coastal communities at risk of more dangerous storm surges. A warmer atmosphere also sucks up more water from the land, only to dump it back down later. The Fourth National Climate Assessment found that heavy precipitation events could increase in the U.S. by at least 50% of the historical average by the end of the century. Much of this rain will occur in areas all over the country that didn't previously see flooding. Rainfall intensity in the Northeast has already increased at a faster rate than anywhere else in the U.S.
Still, it’s no big mystery why so few people purchase flood insurance, even in hurricane-ravaged places like Florida. It’s expensive, confusing, and many people are either ignorant of their flood risk, unaware their regular homeowners insurance doesn’t cover floods, or willing to roll the dice.
There are few options on the private market, and they tend to cost more than policies through the NFIP. But the national program’s policies can still cost upwards of $1,000 per year. The only people required to have a flood policy are those with a federally-backed mortgage who buy property within a “special flood hazard area” — an area deemed to have a 1% risk of flooding in any given year. But the maps designating those areas are out of date in much of the country. Flood risk is not static, as urban development continuously drives changes in hydrology. Some experts say that even when the maps are updated, they don’t adequately reflect flood risk — by, for example, not taking climate change into account.
Janet Thigpen, a flood mitigation specialist in upstate New York, told me that when she talks to residents about flood insurance, most of the time it’s because they are asking her how to get out of buying it. “It's a cost, it’s not cheap, and they don't feel there's value,” she said. “They either say, I've lived here for however long and it has never flooded and it's never gonna flood, or, it flooded but that was a record-breaking flood and it's not going to happen again.” She added that many seem to think that if their homes do flood, insurance won’t actually cover a lot of the damages.
But when a storm comes through, insurance can mean the difference between putting your life back together and being forced to abandon it. Although President Biden approved an emergency declaration for Vermont on Tuesday, which will give residents access to disaster relief and emergency assistance, those grants are typically only a few hundred dollars and are capped at $5,000. National flood insurance policies, on the other hand, pay out up to $250,000.
It’s too early to tally up the full economic toll of this week’s floods, but Vermont Governor Scott said Tuesday that thousands of people lost homes and businesses. Studies have found that there’s often an uptick in flood insurance contracts after a disaster like this, but many let their policies lapse in the proceeding years as memory of the event fades.
There’s much debate and disagreement about how to improve the national picture for flood insurance, John Zinda, an environmental sociologist at Cornell told me. On one hand, insurance puts a price on living in a risky place, and from that perspective, the cost of flood insurance should be high in the riskiest places. FEMA recently introduced a new insurance pricing system called Risk Rating 2.0 that attempts to better capture that risk. It has led to major increases in premiums for homes built in floodplains. (A number of states and municipalities are suing FEMA over the changes.)
On the other hand, said Zinda, that way of thinking assumes that people living in floodplains have willingly taken on that risk. The reality is more complicated given that floods are increasing due to climate change. Urban development and the expansion of impermeable surfaces, like concrete, also severely exacerbates flooding hazards. “There are all sorts of things that happen over time such that somebody who got their house 20 years ago wasn't really making that choice, and now they're stuck there,” he said.
Some experts and policymakers want to improve FEMA’s buyout program for that reason. Many, including Kousky of the Environmental Defense Fund, and FEMA itself, have also put forward proposals for making flood insurance more accessible by providing targeted subsidies to those least able to afford it.
“Another way of thinking about the National Flood Insurance Program,” Zinda told me, “is that it technically works like insurance, but it’s actually part of our social safety net.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The island is home to one of the richest rare earth deposits in the world.
A top aide to incoming President Donald Trump is claiming the president-elect wants the U.S. to acquire Greenland to acquire more rare minerals.
“This is about critical minerals. This is about natural resources,” Trump’s soon-to-be national security advisor Michael Waltz told Fox News host Jesse Watters Thursday night, adding: “You can call it Monroe Doctrine 2.0, but it’s all part of the America First agenda.”
Greenland is rich in “rare earths,” a class of unique and uncommon hardrock resources used for advanced weaponry, electronics, energy and transportation technologies, including electric vehicles. It is home to the Kvanefjeld deposit, believed to be one of the richest rare earth deposits in the world. Kvanefjeld is also stuffed with uranium, crucial for anything and everything nuclear.
Experts in security policy have advocated for years for Western nations to band together to ensure that China, which controls the vast majority of the world’s rare earth minerals, does not obtain a foothold in Greenland. U.S. and Danish officials have reportedly urged the developer of the island’s Tanbreez deposit — rich in the rare earths-containing mineral eudialyte — not to sell its project to any company linked to China. Eudialyte also contains high amounts of neodymium, an exceedingly rare metal used in magnets coveted by the tech sector.
If the U.S. somehow took control of Greenland, it could possibly seize these resources from Denmark, a NATO ally, and the Greenlandic home-rule government. So too could it lead to Greenlanders losing control of their homeland. The country’s minerals have been a major source of domestic debate, as politicians critical of mining have won recent elections and regulators have since fought with mining companies over their plans.
Waltz didn’t go into that much detail on Fox. But he made it clear how the incoming administration sees the situation around control of the island.
“Denmark can be a great ally, but you can’t treat Greenland, which they have operational control over, as some kind of backwater,” Waltz told Waters. “The people of Greenland, all 56,000 of them, are excited about the prospect of making the Western Hemisphere great again.”
Exhausted firefighters are unlikely to catch a break just yet.
On Friday, Angelenos awoke to their first good news in three days: that the battle against the city’s unprecedented fires had finally turned in firefighters’ favor. Though the two biggest blazes — the Palisades and the Eaton — were still only single-digit contained, at 8% and 3%, respectively, it was the first sign of progress since the fires ignited and roared out of control on Tuesday.
The days ahead, though, won’t be easy. Though the Santa Ana winds dipped enough on Thursday and Friday for firefighters to establish a foothold, two upcoming wind events have forecasters and emergency management officials worried. The first will be shorter-lived, beginning on Saturday afternoon and continuing through Sunday, but “it does look significant enough where we might need additional red flag warnings,” Ryan Kittel, an L.A.-based meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told me. NOAA is anticipating gusts of between 35 and 50 miles per hour during that event, and at those speeds, aerial firefighting support will likely be grounded again.
A second wind event will follow that one, which is tracking to hit Monday night into Tuesday. “We’re still figuring out the exact details as far as the strength, but we’re very confident that it won’t be nearly as strong as the winds we saw on Tuesday this week,” Kittel said. “But it could be number two in the ranks of wind events that we’ve had over the last seven days.”
The associated concerns are twofold. The first is that the return of strong wind gusts will fan the blazes that firefighters are only now getting a handle on, potentially pushing the fires into new areas. But there’s another concern, too: that new fires will start.
“What we’re trying to communicate is that the environment is favorable for a fire to get really big, really fast, if one starts. We just don’t know if or where,” Kittel said.
Though the L.A. fires flared up as big as they have because of the Santa Anas, the wind’s cessation creates new risks. The Santa Anas “blow the fires towards the ocean,” Dan Reese, a veteran firefighter and the founder and president of the International Wildfire Consulting Group, told me. But when the Santa Anas subside and L.A.’s normal west-to-east winds return, they’ll push the fires back in the other direction and potentially into neighborhoods that haven’t burned yet.
“Right now, [firefighters’] challenge is what we call closing the back door, making sure that what was once the heel of the fire, or the back side of the fire, does not get up and all of a sudden become a running head the other direction,” Reese explained.
The weather is one problem, and it’s a big one. But there are other challenges, too. Firefighters are only human, and many are completely exhausted after working double shifts and doing the grueling work of defending people and structures for days on end.
There are also logistics-related challenges. Aerial firefighting is exceedingly complex and dangerous, and pilots are only allowed to fly a certain number of hours, which varies depending on whether operations are conducted during the day or at night. “Rotating those crews and keeping those crew hours balanced becomes critical, especially when you’ve got ongoing, continuous fires,” Reese pointed out.
There’s one more bit of bad news. Putting out the fires is only the first challenge. A second will come close on its heels: the mop-up.
“Maybe the fire went through a community but the houses were left standing,” Reese said. “Now all those structures and properties are at the mercy of mudslides and rain, because all of the holding capacity keeping the soil in place has now been burned off.” Soil can even become hydrophobic after exposure to intense heat, repelling water instead of absorbing it, making runoff even more severe.
But there is no rain in the forecast, and the fight against the L.A. County fires — while it’s taken a turn for the better — is far from over. Firefighters “have to deal with the disaster they’ve got right now,” Reese said. “And then they’ll deal with the secondary disasters when those occur.”
They can be an effective wildfire prevention tool — but not always.
Once the fires stop burning in Los Angeles and the city picks itself up from the rubble, the chorus of voices asking how such a disaster could have been prevented will rise. In California, the answer to that desperate query is so often “better forestry management practices,” and in particular “more controlled burns.” But that’s not always the full story, and in the case of the historically destructive L.A. fires, many experts doubt that prescribed burns and better vegetation management would have mattered much at all.
Controlled burns are intentionally set and supervised by land managers to clear out excess fuels such as shrubs, trees, and logs to reduce wildfire risk. Many habitats also require fire to thrive, and so ensuring they burn in a controlled manner is a win-win for natural ecosystems and the man-made environment. But controlled burns also pose a series of challenges. For one, complex permitting processes and restrictions around when and where burns are allowed can deter agencies from attempting them. Community backlash is also an issue, as residents are often concerned about air quality as well as the possibility of the prescribed fires spiraling out of control. Land management agencies also worry about the liability risks of a controlled burn getting out of hand.
Many of the state’s largest and most destructive fires — including the Camp Fire in 2018, lightning complex fires in 2020, and Dixie Fire in 2021 — started in forests, and would therefore have likely been severely curtailed had the state done more controlled burns. According to ProPublica, anywhere between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres used to burn annually in prehistoric California. By 2017, overzealous fire suppression efforts driven by regulatory barriers and short-term risk aversion had caused that number to drop to 13,000 acres. While the state has increased the amount of prescribed fire in recent years, the backlog of fuel is enormous.
But the L.A. fires didn’t start or spread in a forest. The largest blaze, in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood, ignited in a chaparral environment full of shrubs that have been growing for about 50 years. Jon Keeley, a research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of California, said that’s not enough time for this particular environment to build up an “unnatural accumulation of fuels.”
“That's well within the historical fire frequency for that landscape,” Keeley told my colleague, Emily Pontecorvo, for her reporting on what started the fires. Generally, he said, these chaparral environments should burn every 30 to 130 years, with coastal areas like Pacific Palisades falling on the longer end of that spectrum. “Fuels are not really the issue in these big fires — it's the extreme winds. You can do prescription burning in chaparral and have essentially no impact on Santa Ana wind-driven fires.”
We still don’t know what ignited the L.A. fires, and thus whether a human, utility, or other mysterious source is to blame. But the combination of factors that led to the blazes — wet periods that allowed for abundant vegetation growth followed by drought and intensely powerful winds — are simply a perilously bad combination. Firebreaks, strips of land where vegetation is reduced or removed, can often prove helpful, and they do exist in the L.A. hillsides. But as Matthew Hurteau, a professor at the University of New Mexico and director of the Center for Fire Resilient Ecosystems and Society, told me bluntly, “When you have 100-mile-an-hour winds pushing fire, there's not a hell of a lot that's going to stop it.”
Hurteau told me that he thinks of the primary drivers of destructive fires as a triangle, with fuels, climate, and the built environment representing the three points. “We're definitely on the built environment, climate side of that triangle for these particular fires around Los Angeles,” Hurteau explained, meaning that the wildland-urban interface combined with drought and winds are the primary culprits. But in more heavily forested, mountainous areas of Northern California, “you get the climate and fuels side of the triangle,” Hurteau said.
Embers can travel impressive distances in the wind, as evidenced by footage of past fires jumping expansive freeways in Southern California. So, as Hurteau put it, “short of mowing whole hillsides down to nothing and keeping them that way,” there’s little vegetation management work to be done at the wildland-urban interface, where houses bump up against undeveloped lands.
Not everyone agrees, though. When I spoke to Susan Prichard, a fire ecologist and research scientist at the University of Washington School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, she told me that while prescribed burns close to suburban areas can be contentious and challenging, citizens can do a lot on their own to manage fuel risk. “Neighborhoods can come together and do the appropriate fuel reduction in and around their homes, and that makes a huge difference in wildfires,” she told me. “Landscaping in and around homes matters, even if you have 100-mile-an-hour winds with a lot of embers.”
Prichard recommends residents work with their neighbors to remove burnable vegetation and organic waste, and to get rid of so-called “ember traps” such as double fencing that can route fires straight to homes. Prichard pointed to research by Crystal Kolden, a “pyrogeographer” and associate professor at the University of California Merced, whose work focuses on understanding wildfire intersections with the human environment. Kolden has argued that proper vegetation management could have greatly lessened the impact of the L.A. fires. As she recently wrote on Bluesky, “These places will see fire again. I have no doubt. But I also know that you can rebuild and manage the land so that next time the houses won't burn down. I've seen it work.”
Keeley pointed to the 2017 Thomas Fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, however, as an example of the futility of firebreaks and prescribed burns in extreme situations. That fire also ignited outside of what’s normally considered fire season, in December. “There were thousands of acres that had been prescribed burned near the eastern edge of that fire perimeter in the decade prior to ignition,” Keeley explained to Emily. “Once that fire was ignited, the winds were so powerful it just blew the embers right across the prescribed burn area and resulted in one of the largest wildfires that we've had in Southern California.”
Kolden, however, reads the Thomas Fire as a more optimistic story. As she wrote in a case report on the fire published in 2019, “Despite the extreme wind conditions and interviewee estimates of potentially hundreds of homes being consumed, only seven primary residences were destroyed by the Thomas Fire, and firefighters indicated that pre-fire mitigation activities played a clear, central role in the outcomes observed.” While the paper didn’t focus on controlled burns, mitigation activities discussed include reducing vegetation around homes and roads, as well as common-sense actions such as increasing community planning and preparedness, public education around fire safety, and arguably most importantly, adopting and enforcing fire-resistant building codes.
So while blaming decades of forestry mismanagement for major fires is frequently accurate, in Southern California the villains in this narrative can be trickier to pin down. Is it the fault of the winds? The droughts? The humans who want to live in beautiful but acutely fire-prone areas? The planning agencies that allow people to fulfill those risky dreams?
Prichard still maintains that counties and the state government can be doing a whole lot more to encourage fuel reduction. “That might not be prescribed burning, that might actually be ongoing mastication of some of the really big chaparral, so that It's not possible for really tall, developed, even senescent vegetation — meaning having a lot of dead material in it — to burn that big right next to homes.”
From Hurteau’s perspective though, far and away the most effective solution would be simply building structures to be much more fire-resilient than they are today. “Society has chosen to build into a very flammable environment,” Hurteau put it. California’s population has increased over 160% since the 1950’s, far outpacing the country overall and pushing development further and further out into areas that border forests, chaparral, and grasslands. “As people rebuild after what's going to be great tragedy, how do you reenvision the built environment so that this becomes less likely to occur in the future?”