Cuts to federal research spur new “earth intelligence” industry

A quiet revolution is reshaping how governments and businesses track the escalating risks of climate change, and much of it is happening far from the negotiating rooms of UN summits. Years of cuts and political pushback against U.S. federal climate science programmes have opened the door for a surge of private “earth intelligence” companies. Real-estate investors, insurers and energy firms now pay handsomely for detailed models that forecast flood, wildfire and heat-stress risks over the lifetime of their assets. One British real-estate manager overseeing tens of billions of euros has turned to a London-based analytics firm to help decide where it is still safe to build or buy, underscoring how climate data has become a core financial input rather than a niche scientific tool.

Many of the new firms build directly on the same public data that U.S. agencies have long collected and shared without charge. Satellite records, ocean temperature series and historical rainfall data from institutions such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration form the backbone of commercial climate-risk platforms. What is changing is who processes and packages that information. Private players combine open datasets with proprietary algorithms, additional satellite feeds and on-the-ground sensors, then sell forecasts through glossy dashboards and subscription services. Venture capital has rushed in: investment in climate and earth-observation intelligence has climbed several-fold in just a couple of years, with specialised methane-monitoring satellites and offshore mapping outfits among the fastest-growing segments.

Equity, access and the limits of paywalled climate intelligence

Supporters say this boom is filling a gap left by a White House that has scaled back some federal research budgets and signalled scepticism about climate regulation. Companies that once relied on broad, public-sector assessments are now seeking asset-level risk scores that can inform loan terms, insurance premiums and project approvals. For them, paying private providers is simply the cost of doing business in a warming world. They argue that innovation in the commercial sector is producing sharper, more granular insights than any single government agency could afford, and that competition among providers will weed out weak models over time.

Yet the shift also raises uncomfortable questions about fairness and accountability. As more climate intelligence moves behind paywalls, poorer countries and smaller municipalities risk being left with outdated or generic information while deep-pocketed corporations access the best forecasts. Scientists worry that if U.S. climate agencies lose funding or remit, the quality of the baseline data everyone depends on could erode. That would hurt even private firms, which still rely heavily on long, continuous measurement series that only public institutions are mandated to maintain. Analysts also warn about a potential conflict of interest when companies that profit from selling risk scores advise clients on how to price assets, lobbying for policies that may protect investments but not necessarily vulnerable communities.

For now, the public and private systems remain tightly intertwined. U.S. and European space agencies continue to launch satellites and maintain global data archives, while commercial operators expand coverage, add higher-resolution images and build business-friendly products. Regulators are only beginning to grapple with how to set standards for climate-risk disclosures and to ensure that models are transparent enough to be challenged. As extreme weather disasters mount and climate talks struggle to deliver binding action, the demand for credible risk information is certain to grow. The unresolved question is whether that information will remain a shared public resource or evolve into a premium service that deepens, rather than reduces, global climate vulnerability.