Is it time to update the hurricane naming system?

By Erik Assadourian and Esther Phillips

Hurricane season is almost upon us again—officially starting June 1st. And it’s probably going to be a tough year. First because it’s once again going to be an above average season with 17 named storms and 9 hurricanes (including 4 major) projected for the 2025 season. And second, with all the chaos in the federal government—from NOAA to FEMA—the federal response to regions hit by storms could be haphazard at best, or at worst, non-existent.

So, considering all that, perhaps it’s worth exploring the tradition of naming storms. Last hurricane season, a regular reader of Gaian Reflections, Esther Phillips, suggested that hurricanes should not be named after random humans, but corporate brand names—specifically those that have contributed most to the intensification of extreme weather. It seemed like an excellent idea, one reinforced almost immediately when two large hurricanes hit Florida, and the governor (of a state that forbids government employees from talking about climate change) lamented how difficult it is to have “two majors back to back—that is not something that is easy.”

His quote stuck with me as he called the storms majors—like oil majors, the largest oil companies in the world. And that led to the question at the heart of this reflection: Is it possible to shift the naming of hurricanes to major polluters? It’d certainly be more useful than generic names—reminding the public of companies (and corporate consumer capitalism’s) role in accelerating climate change.¹

First, some history…

It turns out that tropical storms have been named since at least the mid-1900s. Atlantic tropical storms have received names since 1953—first only women’s names, though that was adjusted in 1979. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) maintains the list, with names rotating every six years (for Atlantic storms), other than when a storm is so destructive that the name is retired (such as Katrina, Sandy, Mitch and Maria). New names are then added. But couldn’t different or better names be added in? And specifically, names that mean more than Arthur, Elsa, Grace and Jose?² Moreover, as almost every hurricane causes tragedy for some, is it really fair to keep using those names, even if they just killed a few folks rather than hundreds? I certainly wouldn’t want to hear about another Hurricane Hermine heading my way if Hermine once leveled my home.

So, why not draw on a larger source of names than 150 generic human ones? In fact, Pacific storms (typhoons) draw on a broader set of names, including animals, flowers, trees, or food. For example, the deadly 2014 typhoon Haiyan (also named Yolanda) is Chinese for petrel (a type of seabird). So, let’s take the next step and name these storms with the words that have colonized so much of our mental landscape—particularly those that have played an outsized role in contributing to the intensification of these very storms. Imagine Hurricane BP bearing down on Louisiana. That feels more right than hurricane Bonnie or even hurricane Dogwood.

Make it so?

So is this change feasible and how could we implement it? Truthfully, I don’t know. WMO’s website says the names “are now maintained and updated by an international committee of the World Meteorological Organization.” Do they have influence over the names? And even if so, what’s a fair way to choose who’s in and who’s out?

That part isn’t too difficult. Along with oil majors, there is a list of “Carbon Majors,” which includes 180 of the world’s largest fossil fuel and cement producers, ranked by historical emissions. Some you’ll recognize: Hess, Shell and Total, others you might not (Eni, Gazprom and Pemex). But it wouldn’t be difficult to make a list of potential names.

Of course, the bigger challenge would be whether governments (lobbied hard by named corporations) would overrule the committee’s choices, even if civil society could convince members to update the name list?

Getting creative, perhaps companies could even offer naming rights, or in this case, non-naming rights. Just as MetLife paid $17 million a year to name the stadium where the New York Giants and Jets play, could BP pay the WMO $20 million a year to stay off the list? This money could go to climate change mitigation and adaptation, resilience, and relocation of climate refugees (preventing the haphazard rebuilding in climate no-go zones).

Sure, this could come across as blackmail, but companies wouldn’t have to pay, and if they were lucky perhaps their storm would be minor, and not one that went down in infamy.

A More Realistic Trajectory?

I have to admit I can’t imagine this working, because the system is too established. But there’s another system that’s just forming: that of Heat Waves. Only a few heatwaves have been named, and only Seville has officially adopted a naming protocol (choosing five names in 2022). Some heat waves have been informally named and because of the use of mythological names (like Cerberus, a monstrous three headed dog that guards the gates of hell) have caught on. But imagine if instead Heat Wave Peabody ripped through Europe? It would get people thinking about the connections of our energy-intensive lives with its outcomes (even as the same folks turn up their air conditioners to beat the heat).

Ok, maybe not even the public wants these reminders that we’re all complicit with the cooking and flooding of our communities. But we have to try something. Otherwise we’ll keep sleepwalking to a disastrous outcome, where the very same people who complain about the damage from storms, floods and wildfires, dismantle the very systems—from national climate assessments to Energy Star labels—that actually help address the problem.

The question now is how to proceed. Reach out to Seville? Or perhaps The Atlantic Council’s Climate Resilience Center, the nonprofit effort that worked with Seville³ to create this system? Or maybe the Italian weather website, ilMeteo, which named Cerberus. Probably all of the above—getting even one heat wave named after a corporation could spark a whole new type of heat on those who bear much of the responsibility for these extreme events in the first place. And that’s a heat we need.

Endnotes

1) Interesting fact: naming probably began because people responded more readily to named storms rather than either numbers or technical names. See more here.

2) Note, to learn about all the other non-western names used in other parts of the world, this WMO article is very insightful.

3) This is the website, which seems to not be functioning—never a good sign. But perhaps reaching out directly to the mayor of Seville would work.