Climate Damage Is Already an Economic Line Item—Just Not One We Recognize
By Ian Brusewitz and Valerie Gardner
Over just the past 12 months, the US has spent nearly $1 trillion on climate-related disaster recovery and infrastructure damage. That’s 3% of GDP — money that could have gone toward innovation, productivity, benefits, or debt reduction. Instead, it's being rerouted into extreme weather damage cleanup, reconstruction, and emergency response. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, this surge in climate-related spending has effectively become a "stealth tariff" on Americans: a hidden cost that shows up not as a line item, but in the form of higher prices, larger insurance premiums, and government spending that collectively erode household budgets and wealth without being labeled for what it is. The conversation around climate change often centers on long-term risk — but the reality is that US citizens are already paying an average of almost $3,000 annually towards covering the costs of our worsening climate, even if these costs are not specifically identified as such.
This economic burden isn’t theoretical — it’s already bleeding into the real economy in visible, destabilizing ways. Climate-related costs are no longer confined to isolated events or specific regions. Climate change is indifferent to boundaries, and its financial impacts are bleeding into housing markets, food systems, labor dynamics, consumer prices, and state and federal budgets. As these disruptions grow more frequent and severe, as last evidenced by the devastating fires in Los Angeles and deadly flash floods in Texas — no sector, geography, demographic, or business is immune. This suggests that as the capital allocations necessary for climate recovery grow, the environmental risks bleed increasingly into financial risks. Not only are our physical assets vulnerable, but so are our financial assets. This then raises the stakes of where and how to invest.
Insurance and Public Safety Nets Are Starting to Fray
As the economic footprint of climate disruption expands, the institutions we’ve historically relied on to manage risk are showing cracks. Insurance is becoming a visible point of failure in that equation. In 2024, Hurricane Helene hit Florida as the strongest storm ever recorded in the state’s Panhandle. Days later, Hurricane Milton followed. Combined, the two storms caused $113 billion in damage. Then came the devastating California wildfires in January 2025, burning through L.A. suburbs, which added another $65 billion to the total. The LA Times has since estimated total fire damage could exceed $250 billion, making it one of the costliest fire seasons in U.S. history. And, most recently, the devastating Texas floods — with damage estimated at upward of $22 billion — don't even account for the tragic loss of life from these events.
Historically, the federal government covered about one-third of climate-related disaster costs. That share has since dropped to around 2%, leaving municipalities and states to issue debt or delay recovery projects, and shifting more of the burden onto insurers and property owners. In 2023, insurers covered approximately 70% of the $114 billion in U.S. climate-related losses, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Because of rising costs, insurance premiums have doubled since 2017, including a 22% spike in 2023 alone. These increases aren’t reflected in the Consumer Price Index, which means that what we’re calling "inflation" may actually be something distinctly different. The question we can ask is whether or not people would make different choices if these embedded costs were more clearly labeled as a "Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium" or something similar. This lack of clarity and failure to accurately attribute these rising costs to what we think of as cheap fossil fuels means that we understate the full costs and consequences of our use of these fuels.
The "Tragedy of the Horizons" Issue
In 2015, former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney coined the phrase "Tragedy of the Horizons" to describe the problem that results from the fact that people want what's cheap for them today and are unwilling to pay more for something even if it is better for them or their children in the future. The same problem exists at every level in the investment world: financial actors operate on quarterly cycles, while climate impacts unfold over years or decades. This mismatch between how we invest today versus what we need for tomorrow means markets routinely discount the long-term consequences of inaction, prioritizing short-term returns over long-term stability, even when instability is well predicted. The result of this short-term orientation is a structural disconnect that undercuts our ability to invest in climate action and solutions, so as to limit the long-term damage we will inevitably have to pay for, before it gets really bad.
A decade later, this structural blind spot surrounding investing in climate solutions persists. At a recent Financial Stability Board meeting, a U.S. Treasury official dismissed climate concerns unless they posed an "imminent" financial risk. But that logic depends upon people not recognizing the growing annual Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium that they are already paying. In addition to revealing an utter failure to understand the real-world progression of climate impacts and looming tipping points, which are beyond "imminent," they are being expressed with disasters everywhere, even if these costs are economically masked and not clearly identified as climate costs. This disconnect is one of the clearest reasons capital hasn’t shifted meaningfully towards investing in the technologies that can enable the energy transition to the extent that we should. So long as people don't realize how expensive climate inaction actually is, human nature tragically rewards inertia, which means that both the damage done in the interim and the costs of solving climate change will continue to rise.
We’re Still Underestimating the Real Costs
Surveys from Yale’s Climate Change in the American Mind series show rising concern among Americans about climate change. Yet, far fewer people connect climate change directly to the rising costs of food, insurance, consumer products, or energy prices. This perception gap matters. When the public doesn’t see their rising costs as climate-driven, there’s less support for regional climate mitigation efforts, long-term adaptation investments, or even innovative clean energy investments that can help accelerate the energy transition, reduce the impacts of future extreme weather events, a hedge the rising climate risks to their overall portfolio.
While consumer awareness lags, markets have begun to price in climate risks. Bloomberg tracks a basket of 100 companies in insurance, infrastructure, and disaster response that have outperformed the S&P 500 by 7% annually. Capital is adapting faster than federal policy — and faster than public awareness. This divergence captures a core tension. While markets have begun reallocating capital toward climate adaptation — outpacing both federal policy and public awareness — the broader system still treats climate disruption as a distant risk, even though the costs are already embedded in household budgets increasingly squeezed by insurance premiums, rising costs, and disaster recovery bills not covered by insurance or the government. Climate impacts and costs are no longer theoretical or negligible. They are already large, compounding, and for many households, causing significant budgetary pain. And yet, despite the mounting data, policy and public sentiment lag. Yet, there is very little recognition of how these climate costs are escalating or communication to the public about the real price of our government's climate ignorance and inaction.
A Smarter Way Forward
The trillion-dollar annual cost of climate inaction isn’t a projection — it’s already here. It reflects not just extreme weather, but the fallout from underbuilt systems and delayed clean energy investment. We haven’t invested adequately in low-carbon technologies that can reduce and eliminate carbon emissions at scale and possibly even begin to repair the damage that has already been done to the climate. Investments lagged because investors doubted the need for these technologies as well as their commercial viability. Clean energy technologies that were seen as more expensive than fossil fuels were deemed less competitive in today's market and hence, not a good investment. But if we begin to factor in today's Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium plus the growing costs of not having those technologies — namely the ever-escalating costs of climate damage — then these clean energy solutions really start to seem attractive.
This is where next-generation nuclear becomes decisively appealing. Not only does it deliver clean, dense, reliable, and dispatchable power — but it generates power (and so earns money) without relying on the weather or being vulnerable to it, which is a growing risk to renewables projects reliant on the weather cooperating. As both a hedge against the systemic economic risks of climate disruption and as a source of long-term returns and near-term risk reduction, nuclear power offers a uniquely strategic return. If the Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium is now a recurring cost, the only rational move is to invest in the most scalable solutions that cut exposure to climate risk, preserve economic value, and secure a livable future.
References:
Bloomberg, “US Spending on Climate Damage Nears $1 Trillion Per Year,” by Eric Roston, June 17, 2025.
Bloomberg, “Carney’s Risk Warning Reverberates as Global Regulators Disagree Over Climate,” by Alastair Marsh, June 19, 2025.
Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Insurance and Disaster Spending”, September 2023.
Los Angeles Times, “Estimated Cost of Fire Damage Balloons to More Than $250 Billion”, by Sammy Roth, January 24, 2025.
MSN, “Texas Flood Damage to Homes May Cost Up to $22B”, by Michael Walrath, May 2025.
Nature, “Warming Accelerates Global Drought Severity,” by Solomon H. Gebrechorkos et al., June 4, 2025.
NOAA, “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters”, 2024 Report.
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, “Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes”, Fall 2024.
No wonder Bill Gates has already invested over a billion dollars and has committed to 
When electricity is a) clean, b) abundant, c) reliable and d) cost competitive, it can often win in the markets for services provided by burning hydrocarbons. All four criteria are important. But electricity isn't a fossil fuel replacement, and thus cleaner, if is produced using fossil fuel power.
All nuclear power used today comes from the fission of atoms. When it was initially developed and booming, nuclear energy quickly captured about 20% of the electricity market. Initially discovered in late 1942, 
Stimulated by Renewable Portfolio Standards, federal production and/or investment tax credits, similar pieces of legislation at state and local levels and tens of billions of dollars in investments appropriated as part of the Recovery Act of 2009, wind and solar have grown rapidly since 2000 to capture about 15% of the US electricity market. Sustained investments and growing markets enabled the supplier (mostly Chinese) and installation industries to achieve economical scale and substantial manufacturing cost reductions. Advocates for wind and solar have lauded these price reductions and have argued that, because these costs are so low, wind and solar are going to be able to grow to replace all of fossil fuel demand.
The energy transition that we need to achieve has a far greater chance of success in a future where nuclear and renewable energy sources both grow to their potential instead of the 
This graph leaves out oil because it provides only 1 percent of electricity generation (though it is largely used in sectors like transportation and heating that are not yet seeing much impact from competition with alternative sources delivered to end users via electricity). It also leaves out geothermal because its production is barely visible in the graph. What's clear from this image is that wind and solar have helped enable the growth of natural gas, at the expense of coal usage but they have not caused a net decline in the total amount of fossil fuel use, just a marked shift in type.
