Creation Covenant Alliance

Impact on Science if NOAA Faces Disbandment

Project 2025 proposes dismantling NOAA. Scientists and conservationists say the idea is “fraught with peril.”
hurricane
When James Lindholm first heard about Project 2025’s proposal to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), his first thought was that the idea, if realized, would be “fraught with peril.” Lindholm, a marine scientist at California State University, Monterey Bay, and a former NOAA employee, noted that the disappearance of NOAA would make life significantly harder for millions of Americans.

The right-wing ideologues behind Project 2025 view government-funded science differently. Project 2025, a document by the Heritage Foundation, calls NOAA a “colossal operation” and suggests dismantling it, with its functions either eliminated, transferred, privatized, or controlled by states and territories.

Much of the media attention on this proposal has focused on its impact on weather forecasting. Researchers like Lindholm warn that its effects would extend across various earth sciences.

NOAA, founded in 1970 under President Richard Nixon, is divided into six sub-agencies, including the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These bureaus provide data crucial to daily life and environmental safety.

“Literally every single person in the US relies on NOAA every single day,” says Jeff Watters, vice president of external affairs for the Ocean Conservancy.

Project 2025 proposes changes to all six sub-agencies, including dissolving the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations and downsizing others, shifting responsibilities to different departments or private companies. The blueprint also suggests selling National Weather Service data to private firms and ensuring that the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service presents data neutrally.

Rick Thoman, a climate specialist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, acknowledges NOAA’s flaws but opposes privatizing its services, especially for regions like Alaska that rely heavily on public weather forecasts.

“If weather forecasts were completely privatized, this would be a complete disaster for Alaska,” he says, citing the state’s vast area and small population.

Watters argues that NOAA’s comprehensive approach is its strength. “Breaking apart those pieces would massively weaken all three of them, because you can’t understand or predict the weather without understanding climate and the ocean,” he says.

Lindholm highlights the risks of losing NOAA’s offshore weather data, essential for planning ocean research trips. Without it, researchers could face increased dangers and wasted resources.

Project 2025’s demand for NESDIS to present data neutrally could lead to data modifications or outages, with significant consequences. “If you lost even 12 hours of input from satellites in the weather models, it would be a very bad thing,” Thoman warns.

Lindholm worries that removing NOAA would complicate ocean regulation and weaken marine protections. “I’m not convinced that anybody’s ready to step into the void and offer the kind of holistic management that we need,” he says.

Watters and others are also concerned about the potential decline in public investment in science. NOAA’s support has been crucial for research and job opportunities in marine and climate science fields.

Watters emphasizes the importance of unbiased scientific advice. Breaking apart NOAA “is not going to stop climate change. It’s just a reaction to an agency that is telling us something we don’t want to hear,” he says. The notion of dismantling NOAA is “deeply, deeply troubling.”

More stories about:
climate change

Original Story at www.sierraclub.org

Trending News

Mississippi River Faces Persistent Saltwater Intrusion, Region Seeks Long-Term Solutions



For the third consecutive year, the Mississippi River is experiencing significant saltwater intrusion, prompting local communities and environmental experts to search for sustainable solutions. This recurring issue arises as the river’s flow decreases, allowing saltwater to move upstream and threaten drinking water supplies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is actively involved in addressing this problem, employing temporary measures like saltwater barriers to mitigate the impact on affected areas.



Saltwater infiltration poses serious risks to public health and agriculture, as freshwater sources become compromised. The situation is exacerbated by prolonged periods of drought, which have reduced freshwater flow in the Mississippi River. According to the National Weather Service, drought conditions have worsened due to climate change, increasing the frequency and severity of saltwater intrusion events.



Local authorities are collaborating with federal agencies to explore permanent solutions. Among the proposed strategies are enhanced levee systems and improved water management techniques. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating the feasibility of long-term infrastructure projects to prevent further saltwater encroachment. Additionally, community leaders are advocating for increased funding to support these initiatives and safeguard the region’s water resources.



The impact of saltwater intrusion extends beyond drinking water concerns, affecting local ecosystems and agricultural productivity. Farmers in the region have reported crop damage due to elevated salinity levels in irrigation water. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is working with farmers to implement adaptive practices, such as planting salt-tolerant crops and improving soil management techniques.



As the Mississippi River continues to face challenges from saltwater intrusion, stakeholders emphasize the importance of collaborative efforts and innovative solutions. The ongoing threat underscores the need for comprehensive planning and investment to protect one of America’s most vital waterways from the impacts of climate change and environmental stressors.

November 19, 2024



Environmental activists have raised concerns over the fossil fuel sector’s significant impact on COP29, the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference. Activists argue that the industry’s presence diverts focus from critical climate actions.



The conference, designed to promote global climate agreements, faces criticism for allowing fossil fuel companies to participate extensively. Environmental groups claim these companies undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions and transition to renewable energy sources.



According to Climate Action Network, fossil fuel representatives have increased their lobbying activities, aiming to weaken climate policies. These industries allegedly influence negotiations, leading to watered-down commitments that fail to address the urgency of climate change effectively.



Experts suggest that the influence of these companies stems from financial contributions and longstanding relationships with decision-makers. Critics argue that this affects the conference’s ability to enforce meaningful climate change regulations.



During the event, several protests highlighted the need for transparency and a stronger focus on sustainable energy solutions. Activists are calling for increased participation of renewable energy stakeholders in future conferences.



The controversy surrounding fossil fuel involvement at COP29 underscores the ongoing challenge of balancing industrial interests with the global imperative to combat climate change.



November 19, 2024