Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Salon has helpfully provided Americans with a list of Federal climate budget cuts which can be applied on day one of the new Trump administration.
Politicizing climate change: Donald Trump’s budget could cut climate funding for NASA, other federal departments
Donald Trump, in an effort to cut spending, is likely going to slash some important climate change programs
BRIAN KAHN AND BOBBY MAGILL, CLIMATE CENTRAL
The world is waiting to hear what President-elect Donald Trump has in mind for governing the U.S. Among the biggest questions is what will happen to the budget for climate and energy-related activities.
Though they’re a relatively small piece of a federal budget that is in excess of $1 trillion, how the administration deals with climate and energy will go a long ways toward determining the future of the planet.
“We don’t get a second chance,” Secretary of State John Kerry said last week at the United Nations climate talks in Morocco. “We have to get this right and we have to get it right now.”
…
Energy Department
2017 climate-related budget: $8.5 billion
…
Interior Department
2017 climate-related budget: $1.1 billion
…
State Department
2017 climate-related budget: $984 million
…
NASA
2017 climate-related budget: $1.9 billion
…
Environmental Protection Agency
2017 climate-related budget: $1.1 billion
…
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2017 climate-related research and development: $190 million
…
I must say I’m impressed – that’s $13.5 billion of useless waste which can be cut immediately from the Federal Budget. $13.5 billion is an awful lot of road resurfacing and bridge repairs, or a very welcome new year bonus for hard pressed taxpaying Americans.
Good job guys – if you have any more tips Salon, please be sure to forward them to the Trump Administration.
This is only the starting point list from a low-information source. Going beyond that we have directed waste at DoD, UN re-allocation of wealth transfers, and the budget cost of the ITC. Add in the cost of climate change policy on an already stressed academic and primary education system and you have long term costs from IQ impairment measured in trillions.
The most significant cost going forward will be rewriting all the textbooks that present unsubstantiated claims about CO2 as fact. Some fraction of the billions saved by a rational approach to climate science should be allocated for this. Otherwise, we’ll be stuck with broken textbooks for the next couple of decades and children (including those that make it to college) will still be learning the propaganda instead of the truth.
Gangrene is rot. Gang-Green is putrid. Time for radical surgery to save the patient (the rest of science).
I should have said patients: The rest of science, the tax payer, freedom and democracy. Oh and sanity. That counts too.
Resource guy commented: “Add in the cost of climate change policy
on an already stressed academic and primary education system
and you have long term costs from IQ impairment measured in trillions.”
Well ellucidated — the astronomical social cost of the “Anthropocene Age” scientific paradigm.
The problem with packing the boards of all our successful businesses with green NGO puppets and marketers is that it only works when you regulate competition out of existence. Put that another way: adding inefficiencies and expenses at every turn only works if everyone does it, and if you outlaw other businesses.That is the whole point of these ghastly globalist trade deals and environmental treaties.
But where there is liberty, there are younger, smaller, funner competitors. And the best part: voluntary and happy customers with real choices.
+ Happy Thanksgiving to all.
@mikerestin Very Happy Thanksgiving
That is the whole point of these ghastly globalist trade deals and environmental treaties.
===============
the EU started out as a trade pact. however, by adding trade regulation on top of all facets of life, with hundreds of regulations covering even minute details of life, they slowly became the de facto government of Europe. an elected parliament without power, with an un-elected board that controls all levers of power.
Folks,
Here is my list of actions for the Trump administration to consider taking.
1). Reverse President Obama’s signing of the UN COP-21 Climate change Treaty of 2015 (Paris Agreement).
2). Support the efforts of an Australian initiative called CLEXIT (http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/clexit.pdf ) to cancelling the Paris Agreement on climate change by various countries (Disclosure: I am a founding member).
3). Cancel any US funding for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and curtail funding of US participants in any and all UN-sponsored climate functions
4). Cut all funding for climate research by 50% and require NSF, NOAA, DOD, EPA, and DOE to use the reduced funding ONLY for OBSERVATION-BASED and EVIDENCE-BASED climate research.
5). Cut funding for all climate-related education programs in schools and colleges.
6). Cut funding for expensive, unproductive alternate energy research and subsidies.
With respect to Item #1, please be advised that the UN’s goals in climate change are to destroy the capitalistic system and national sovereignty and likely is known to you. I base this statement on two quotes from former UN officials and ‘Agenda 21’ which make this very clear:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, Former Executive Secretary, UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), February 10, 2015 (Investors Business Daily)
AND
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, Former UN Climate Official, 3.29.16 (Investors Business Daily)
I rest my case.
George Devries Klein, PhD< PG, FGSA
cut the subsidies, cut the taxes, cut the regulations, remove the barriers to entry. business will boom, employment will boom, government revenues will boom.
Use that money to harden our electric system against EMP! Re-up the facilities to manufacture power transformers and re-employ the skilled workers – here, in the USA. Do it now! – Before the N. Koreans and/ or the Iranians complete their ability to destroy us!
“Though they’re a relatively small piece of a federal budget that is in excess of $1 trillion, how the administration deals with climate and energy will go a long ways toward determining the future of the planet.”
They were too lazy to even Google to find out what the federal budget is…$3.95 trillion for 2016. Makes no difference if it is 1 percent, 10 percent, or .0001 percent of the budget. Wasteful spending is wasteful spending.
So, the Government Steals from us for the past 20 yrs on Climate flipping Change,.. and wants US to be mad at Not LETTING THEM Anymore? Salon…. you are bonkers if you think Americans fall for your Bullchit.
Go suck a Rock….. She how long the Climate makes it change…
Azzhats..
Robin Price Grace…..
NOAA is the only organization whose portfolio covers weather and climate. You’ll notice that they have the smallest allocation for climate research in the whole list. I smell graft, in copious amounts.
Slash everyone else’s climate funds, review NOAA’s.
Forgot to add DoD. The DOD is under an Obama directive to obtain 20% of their energy from “Renewable sources. That includes building Wind farms, Solar Farms and extravagant wasteful “Research”
Exactly correct.
Rescind the executive order and the problem goes away.
DOD wants no part of the “sustainable, environmentally friendly” military. Stop making them do this stuff, and DOD will need no further encouragement to drop all this stuff.
but they are saving a lot on fuel costs…
..Griff….You Are Nuts……
HOW???? The utility I retired from has a $0.03/kwh contract for electricity with the local AFB. . Please tell me what wind/solar is cheaper than that? The contract with the Solar power contractor is over $0.25/kwh. How does that save fuel costs?
I’ve read most of the comments here and I, perhaps naively, expected a higher level of conversation. I’m a climate skeptic, but I find this orgy of knee- jerk retribution against the entire climate science establishment a bit much. What needs to be done is a thorough review of all federal science policy and organizations. Then those engaged in climate advocacy, or any kind of science advocacy, needs to be defunded and the responsible individuals should be held accountable.
We know enough about climate change to know that we have a problem with Co2 emissions, but the uncertainties overwhelm what we know. To not gather and analyze data, and not continue to advance the science, would be insane. We need one objective organization studying this issue, and the US of A should be sponsoring it. Mindlessly eliminating agencies or eliminating their budgets is not the way to do this.
I’m hoping that a few people here agree that climate change is a subject worthy of study. We need to do it better, not eliminate it. And I hope the new President has the judgment and patience to do this properly. We don’t need an anti-science purge.
Study climate, perhaps. Study the planet’s weather system and it’s long term interactions and variations from short to very long time frames. By all means.
Climate change, as in Global Warming? Forget it. Been there, done that. The proponents of the idea have had 30+ years of lavish funding and have come up empty. Enough, already.
We need a good purge of anti-science.
This is lately and perhaps understandably largely a reflection of current US political events…
The majority of world skeptics are Republicans, so there’s bound to be a political bias, and much comment driven by enthusiasm for the change in regime…
I’m disappointed that actual climate events are not being debated though – like this:
and the arctic 36 degree F temp anomaly
and this research
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/arctic-sea-ice-melting-polar-north-antarctic-global-warming-climate-change-tipping-point-a7438416.html
and this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/nasa-reveals-shocking-rate-of-decline-in-arctic-sea-ice/
Griff: “I’m disappointed that actual climate events are not being debated though – like this:”
That’s called “weather”.
Do try to keep up.
The 36 degree F temperature anomaly in the Arctic is really a time anomaly. I’ve been looking for the explanations, but haven’t found any legitimate ones outside of the AOC. The gist is this — we should be in a state of rapid cooldown during this month in the Arctic. The cool-down is delayed due to ocean oscillations — but it looks more extreme when you use temperature because the Arctic normally cools down by this much or more as it heads into winter. (And, of course, you use Fahrenheit because it looks bigger.)
There also seems to be a prompt shift in the data on both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent calculation. I’ve been trying to find out what has caused that shift, but it is an abrupt shift. On this graph, you see the shift when 2016 maps the 2011 and 2013 trend line, then shifts to being the lowest ice extent since 1981. I cannot find anybody who can explain this shift.
Neither the Independent nor the Telegraph are “research”. Republican is an American political party, so statements like “The majority of world skeptics are Republicans” are invalid.
The largest political bloc in the USA is neither Republican nor Democrat.
The largest voter bloc in the US is “unaffiliated” voters.
Independents.
( Not the Independent Party)
scraft1: “We know enough about climate change to know that we have a problem with Co2 emissions”
No we don’t.
Recent research indicates very much the opposite, in fact.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
I agree with that sentiment. We need to keep studying the climate until we have a better understanding of it. I think a kneejerk response to climate science is based on the perception of scientific bias in the research.
For me, the question is not one of “We know enough about climate change to know that we have a problem with Co2 emissions, but the uncertainties overwhelm what we know.” — Rather, we have to determine if any solutions are worse than the actual harms related to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
We know that carbon dioxide levels are rising primarily due to manmade causes. Beyond this, the evidence supports a man-made link to longer and more frequent heat waves, (shorter and less frequent cold waves) and a slight increase in sea level. The linkage between any other harm is theoretical, but poorly documented. (extinction, droughts, hurricanes, coral reef damage, and so on) Most of these linkages are based on a nebulous correlation — as carbon dioxide increases then extinctions have increased. But correlation does not equal causation, and even the correlations are weak.
But here is the problem with our scientific system. If you are a scientist trying to get funding, you gain more funding to study a possible link between your field of expertise and climate change. To get published in a prestigious journal, you need to publish more significant results than seen in the past. Few scientists will get published if they study the American Pika population with the result that there is no link to climate change. Yet, the only way to get further financing is to get published in a prestigious journal.
This creates a system of confirmation bias in the funding methods of science. Until that is resolved, we will continue to have people believe that climate science does not deserve the funding methods they receive.
“$13.5 billion is an awful lot of road resurfacing and bridge repairs”
Actually, I think it is less than a week’s worth of current federal government over-spending. Cut it, and the US gets nothing except a little less deficit spending. 🙁
There is always a fix…
There have been many good ideas suggested in this thread.
The Trump administration (what fun to type that!) has a suggestion box.
I have already used the Web version to suggest reinstating Civics in education.
The McClatchy link below has some explanation and includes links directly to the Web and Twitter channels for you to communicate your ideas to them.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article116478298.html
Have at it!
PA Ozzies: if you want an American citizen to front for you, please let me know.
Many excellent suggestions in the comments.
Did you know that the Trump Administration (what fun to type that) has set up a Web page and a Twitter feed for such suggestions?
Good overview at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article116478298.html.
Link to how you can make America Great: https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory/ Twitter: @transition2017.
I’ve already suggested bringing American Civics back into education.
Many great ideas above.
Did you know that the Trump Administration has channels for your suggestions?
Twitter: @transition2017
Link to MAGA ideas widget: https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory/
Apologies for the multiple redundant posts. Had some trouble signing in and uploading!