47% of U.S. adults have taken at least one concrete action because of weather or climate risk in the past two years, and the pattern tracks almost exactly with cost. Cheap, reversible decisions move first. Expensive, permanent ones move last.
Travel and events are easy to adjust, so they lead. But 17% of adults have already spent real money altering their homes, and that's not a reaction to a single storm. It's a durable shift in behavior. The context helps explain why: the U.S. logged 23 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2025 totaling $115 billion in damage, according to Climate Central's analysis of NOAA data. That made 2025 the third-costliest year on record, behind only 2023 and 2024, and it continues a longer trend: the U.S. has averaged 20 billion-dollar disasters a year over the last decade, more than double the average since 1980.
For any brand with a weather-triggered demand curve, such as home improvement, insurance, travel, and event businesses, that curve is already active. The purchase moment is happening. The only question is whether it's being met before the storm or cleaned up after it.
When severe weather is forecast, 44% of adults go straight to a television brand, either a local station or The Weather Channel, before checking anything else. Apps account for 34% of first checks, and social feeds or creators account for just 5%.
Broken out further, a local TV station or its app is the single most common first stop at 26%, ahead of the phone's built-in weather app at 22% and The Weather Channel at 18%. Government alerts, by comparison, are the first stop for only 3% of adults. They still reach people, but almost always after a broadcaster or an app has already framed the story.
That's a meaningful data point for weather and local news brands defending their relevance against apps and social platforms. The advantage is real, but it sits with the station and the broadcast brand, not with any single platform. The phone's default weather app is the closest competitor, and it's still 4 points behind.
Asked who should be most responsible for absorbing rising weather-related property damage, 46% of adults said insurance companies. The government, combining federal and state, accounts for another 23%. Only 11% put the responsibility on individual homeowners and renters, and just 5% pointed to the developers and builders who chose the location in the first place.
That last figure is worth sitting with. Land-use decisions, where homes get built and how, are a real driver of long-term exposure, yet they barely register as a place the public assigns responsibility. For advocacy organizations working on climate resilience or land-use policy, that's a sign the argument hasn't been made to the public yet, not that the public disagrees with it.
There's also a widening gap between expectation and participation. Only 9% of adults have actually added or changed an insurance policy because of weather risk in the past two years, but 46% expect insurers to absorb the rising cost regardless. Meanwhile, insurers are already pulling back, as homeowners insurance premiums rose more than 30% between 2020 and 2023. In high-risk states like Florida, California, and Louisiana, the number of homeowners relying on last-resort, state-backed coverage roughly doubled over that same period. Expectation is running well ahead of what the market is actually able to absorb, and that mismatch is where the next round of pricing, coverage, and policy fights will happen.
Brands with climate exposure, such as home services, insurance, travel, and events, are watching a purchase moment happen reactively. It's being served after the storm, when it could be reached before one. The 17% who've already modified their homes and the 9% who've touched an insurance policy are proof the demand exists. The work now is finding them earlier in that curve, not after the damage is done.
Advocacy organizations have an audience that's already acting through travel, events, home repairs, and relocation decisions. The issue is that they have not yet connected those actions to the land-use and policy debates behind them. The 5% who assign responsibility to developers is the clearest signal in the entire survey that this argument is still largely unmade. That's an opening, not a dead end.
Weather and local news brands are holding a trust advantage that's real, durable, and still tied to the station rather than any single app or platform. Protecting that 44% first-check share means continuing to earn it, especially as the phone's default weather app sits just 4 points behind.
Data like this is why weather risk isn't just a forecasting question, it's a targeting question. Tunnl helps brands, agencies, and advocacy organizations understand which audiences are already navigating climate and weather risk, and how to reach them before the next event. That's the difference between knowing what people are worried about and knowing what to do about it.
Download our full insights here
With hurricane season underway and another summer of record heat and wildfire smoke behind us, Tunnl asked 3,066 U.S. adults, a nationally representative sample, what weather and climate risk had actually changed in their lives.