Why does the data start in 1980? 42 years is a really short timeframe to infer trends.  Usually, when a short timeframe is used in data like this, it is because the starting date is specifically chosen to push a narrative that won't show the same trend if a longer timeframe is used.  To be fair, at least there was a mention that all of the increases in storm damage weren't solely due to climate: 

"The increase in population and material wealth over the last several decades, are an important cause for the rising costs."

It does seem like a big portion of the billion-dollar events could have been avoided.  

"In four of the last five years (2017, 2018, 2020 and 2021) California has experienced historically large and costly wildfires with losses well exceeding $50.0 billion."

That may be true, but wildfires are mostly started by humans, and they are large and costly at least partially because they have neglected to do controlled burns and because more people are living in those forests.  Plus, those excessive fires destroy large areas of vegetation, which leads to increased flooding.

Also, the Texas power grid failure happened because of poor planning and bad decisions, not just because it was an unusually severe storm.

I do agree with this statement:  "Given all these compounding hazard risks, there is an increased need to focus on where we build, how we build, and investing in infrastructure updates that are designed for a 21st century climate".  In my opinion, we have a much better chance of making those improvements than we do of trying to prevent the climate from changing.

It would be interesting for someone to use the same available data and make a case that storms and storm damage are not getting much worse, just like debate competitions where participants have to be able to argue both sides of the topic.