What Hurricane Milton’s Damage Says About Climate Preparedness
from Energy Security and Climate Change Program
from Energy Security and Climate Change Program

What Hurricane Milton’s Damage Says About Climate Preparedness

A cyclist navigates damaged roads in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton in Manasota Key, Florida.
A cyclist navigates damaged roads in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton in Manasota Key, Florida. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The record-breaking storm was the second major hurricane to hit Florida in less than two weeks. Experts say climate change has worsened the wreckage of such events, straining government efforts to respond.

October 16, 2024 12:22 pm (EST)

A cyclist navigates damaged roads in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton in Manasota Key, Florida.
A cyclist navigates damaged roads in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton in Manasota Key, Florida. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Expert Brief
CFR scholars provide expert analysis and commentary on international issues.

Alice Hill is the David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

How serious is the loss and damage from Hurricane Milton? 

More From Our Experts

At landfall, Milton carried winds of 120 miles-per-hour or more and life-threatening storm surge, cascading into one of the most intense hurricanes ever recorded in the Atlantic basin. The hurricane left 3.5 million people without electricity. At least twenty-four deaths have been confirmed as of October 14.

More on:

Climate Change

Disasters

United States

Hurricane Milton also produced what is likely one of the worst tornado outbreaks in Florida. Without the influence of climate change, Milton would probably have made landfall as a category 2 storm instead of the category 3 storm it became. Experts warn that the supercharged intensification of Milton represents an unnatural extreme weather event, the likes of which will continue to rise due to fossil fuel-driven warming. Making matters worse, Florida communities were still recovering from Hurricane Helene, which flooded parts of the state and North Carolina just two weeks prior. Scientists say Hurricane Helene was also worsened by climate change.

The head of AccuWeather, the American private weather forecasting media company, preliminarily estimated Milton’s economic loss at between $160 and $180 billion. Insured losses will be less but still significant, with estimates ranging from $30 to $60 billion. Uninsured losses from Hurricane Milton will likely greatly exceed insured losses. Many homeowners likely also lack flood insurance, which typically requires a separate policy from the National Flood Insurance Program. One analyst from the Insurance Information Institute notes that only about 20 percent of homeowners have flood insurance in Florida. Moreover, President Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that the Small Business Administration’s disaster loan program funds are depleted after the dual hurricanes.

What lessons have been learned from dealing with the upsurge of such epic storms, especially in Florida?

Strong building codes work. Florida is a hurricane-prone state. It has extensive emergency response procedures in place. It also has a strong building code, which was put in place after Hurricane Andrew flattened more than sixty thousand homes in 1992. Both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Institute for Business and Home Safety rate Florida’s building codes as among the most effective in the nation. These advantages helped curb the extent of damage. 

More From Our Experts

Disinformation poses a new danger. The spread of false information around the federal government’s response to both Milton and Helene has exacerbated the chaos and challenges of disaster relief efforts. FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell called the distrust and dissuasion created by false conspiracies “the absolute worst [she had] ever seen.” The Wall Street Journal reported that following Hurricane Helene, white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, posing as rescue workers, were offering aid while filming propaganda videos and spreading disinformation about the government’s response.

Countering disinformation can force emergency workers to divert resources from rapid response to providing correct information to disaster victims instead. Meanwhile, false information can frighten people away from seeking the help and resources they need. FEMA employees are also seeing threats to their safety, with one man recently arrested after brandishing a gun and knife on a FEMA employee responding to Hurricane Helene in North Carolina.

More on:

Climate Change

Disasters

United States

What can be done to build more climate-resilient communities in the future?

Rising temperatures primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels will likely generate even bigger storms ahead. Coastal communities will have to contend with more growing storm surges brought by higher sea levels. The added moisture carried by the atmosphere can drive more flooding. And higher ocean temperatures can lead to swift intensification of storms. To address the potential risks of these climate disasters, the government and local communities could:

Listen to property insurance signals. Before Hurricanes Helene and Milton hammered Florida, the state’s property insurance market was already struggling, with Floridians paying the highest premiums nationally, according to the insurance comparison company Insurify. As of 2023, Floridians paid on average $3,340 for homeowner’s insurance. The losses from these two storms will likely further drive up premium prices and could threaten the survival of some smaller insurers with policies concentrated in the state.

When homeowners have insufficient insurance or lack insurance entirely, they are forced to rely on savings, charity, and/or the government to cover losses. They would likely need to take on significant debt to cover repair costs. They could be able to only make partial repairs, or they may decide to abandon their property altogether. Unrepaired homes can lead to declining neighborhood property values. This, in turn, can stress communities. With fewer people and businesses paying taxes, local governments would struggle to pay for local services. The recovery timeline then could drag on longer. Banks and lenders could experience more mortgage defaults with floods rendering homes uninhabitable. 

Uninsured losses can also widen the wealth gap, with wealthier homeowners more likely to be able to cover the losses through insurance or other resources. The federal government’s Financial Stability Oversight Council has warned that increasing climate-related losses and declining insurance coverage could carry financial stability implications.

As with the proverbial canary in the coal mine, communities and homeowners alike should pay attention to [rising insurance costs] when making choices as to where to invest and live.
Alice C. Hill, CFR Senior Fellow

When insurance companies raise premiums, it can be a signal that risk is escalating. Higher insurance costs in the United States have followed increasing damage from climate-worsened events. As with the proverbial canary in the coal mine, communities and homeowners alike should pay attention to that signal when making choices as to where to invest and live. 

Improve building codes. To reduce the risk caused by worsening climate-fueled extremes, communities should examine their building codes and standards to ensure that they provide sufficient protection against current and future extreme weather. The National Institute of Building Sciences estimates that for every dollar spent on adopting the strongest building codes, eleven dollars is saved on damages. Yet, according to FEMA, 65 percent of U.S. counties, cities, and towns have yet to adopt modern building codes as of November 2020.

Examine land-use choices. Permitting more development in areas at substantial risk to climate extremes, such as storm surge and wildfire, means that structures are destined to burn and flood in the future. Improved land use and building practices can increase the insurability of homes. Taking these steps could also help stem the rise in insurance premiums in the future.

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Europe

On the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, CFR President Michael Froman and senior fellows discuss the Trump administration’s diminished appetite for engagement in European security affairs—even as the Russia-Ukraine war drags on.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.