We've learned that the Constitution designed the system to be difficult to change. Passing laws is hard, and making amendments can seem nigh impossible. And in many a case, it's easy to attribute slow-moving legislative progress to this intrinsic quality of our government.
However, there's a point where resistance to change becomes more of a barrier to progress and success than anything else. This is the case in the instance of the NOAA's request for the creation of the NCS (National Climate Service), which Congress just shot down. As quoted from a Washington Post Article (link in post title), "...in a political climate where talk of the earthly kind of climate can be radioactive, the answer in last week’s budget deal was “no.” Congress barred NOAA from launching what the agency bills as a “one-stop shop” for climate information."
This move would requiring some shuffling around with the creation of the NCS (would be similar to the National Weather Service), but would not require any additional funding.
Those that objected cited climate services becoming a propaganda source rather than a science source as cause for concern. But what's even more concerning is that limiting access to climate information won't make climate change go away.
And in fact, access to climate information is not an insignificant issue. From confusion over general where-to-go for climate info, to insurance companies studying past natural disasters, to better information regarding increasingly frequent hazardous weather, a single, streamlined source for climate info would certainly be a beneficial tool.
Climate change is happening; blocking legislation that would simply aid in making this more understandable and accessible doesn't aid the matter in the slightest. It's high time we learn to look past petty propaganda and take a stab at the real problems that we face. That's a bit more difficult when sides are busy looking to take stabs at each other.
EDIT (11/21): I realized I had written NCA instead of NCS (National Weather Service) in a couple of locations. Sorry for any confusion.
Tuesday Late Night Open Thread
2 hours ago
8 comments:
I find this rejection completely absurd. If you really think about it, if something like this were to be implemented, its benefits could outweigh its costs. According to the Washington Post article, this Climate Service could help urban planners know where groundwater supplies are and how deep they should go. In terms of economics, this is very beneficial because the planners will not have to do it themselves; they will have a resource that they can go to that will tell them. In terms of environmental awareness, this could also be beneficial because it could tell urban planners that the source of groundwater that that they are planning is almost depleted and they should move somewhere else instead of just building something there and further depleting our water resources. Basically, I believe that this Climate Service would have been a good idea, but people in Congress are too stubborn to look past their beliefs to cause change. Climate change is a looming problem, but it is not being dealt with. I think the most powerful line in that article is “Limiting access to this kind of climate information won’t make climate change go away.” Climate change will not go away if we just ignore it.
I agree with Anna and Dustan about the ridiculousness about the ruling. As Dustan cited, there are a variety of benefits from approving the creation of the National Climate Service. The only real concern I see is the claim that the NCA would not require any additional funding. No matter what the proponents for the NCA claim, there will always be an additional cost, which would be covered by additional funding in the future or allocating funds from another area. Either method of generating more funds is not ideal, as there would be a tradeoff between different areas under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or more money spent. However, I believe that the benefits from the NCA far outweigh that additional funding it would require. The government needs to do what is right for the country instead of what will keep them in office. This has been a problematic trend throughout our political history. In general, politicians will look out for their own best interests to stay in office rather than fulfilling the promises they made while campaigning if their popularity is at risk.
The National Climate Service is a good idea that the Obama administration announced. The NCA would have had provided a user information to help business adapt to climate change; creating a central federal source of information on everything from projections of sea level rise to maps of US best sites for wind and solar power. American citizens, businesses and governments would have benefited from NCA since they need to rise to the problems that lay ahead. NCA would have provided long term projections of how climate will change something that the NOAA's National Weather Service cannot do since they only provide short range environmental conditions. There is a critical need for NCA since climate change is real and its happening around the world. Climate is already raising sea levels, lengthening growing seasons, causing more intense drought, and increasing the incidence of extreme weather.
This reminded me of the debate we had in class about how efficient our democratic government really is... as well as the recent panic over the Super Committee's inability to make a decision, as resulting from the Republicans and Democrats being unable to accept each others' changes to the plan.
Anyways, I do agree with everything that's been mentioned above. If there are no additional costs, I can see no reasonable cause for Congress to shoot the NCA down. And just to add on to all the aforementioned benefits, the government could even help the economy because through spending more money on climate research they also need to hire more people.
I think Sophia brings up a good point about cost. The point that they're trying to make when they say "there will be no additional cost" is that it won't require any additional budget allocation; however, there's the TINSTAFL perspective--enacting this change will result in a cost of some form or another. Work that goes into developing the NCS will have its own opportunity cost, for instance. However, even with this consideration, I still think that creating the NCS would be a worthwhile endeavor.
This poor legislative decision saddens me, as it is yet another example of the difficulties of our government. Considering all the aforementioned benefits of the NCS, in addition to a few more (government efficiency, stimulation of the economy, and strengthening of national security), the end result was a terrible decision.
Resisting change on the basis of denial to the existence of global warming is akin to, for those Harry Potter fans, Fudge's refusal to act against Voldemort. As others have stated, ignoring a problem won't make it go away. Pretending Voldemort was dead basically invited him to commit more crimes in secrecy. While, granted, the environmental changes are proceeding on a slower scale, the threat is still there. The most unfortunate part is the undemocratic nature of the supermajority: when a few conservative extremists are able to trump over crowds of scientific supporters, you know power needs to change hands.
I agree with what is said above. If the National Climate Service were to be created by the NOAA it wouldn't need any more funding from Congress. The Republicans should favor not wasting money, yet they cannot seem to let anything climate change related pass in their "turf." It seems to me that all the Republicans are trying to do is assert their power where they have it (the House).
I agree with everyone. The Congress cut down the budget for several agencies last week. Given the deficit, that is better. However, those cuts are a miniscule reduction to over all spending. I also think that some of the cuts would not create any drastic changes. They are trying to lower spending at the expense of the environment and public health. Like the article said, Congress still continues to fund NOAA. The only difference is that the money is going to be distributed across the agency instead of consolidating it under one climate service. If that is the case, then it is better to pass the bill, which will provide more service and help to the people. Farmers, insurance companies, businesses, regular people and even the government can
save more money if they could prepare for natural disasters. According to data compiled by Weather Undergound, there have been 14 weather disasters this year that cost more than $53 billion. The article also mentioned that IPCC reported that these extreme weather we have been experiencing lately will become the norm. Given what the scientists
know, NOAA's proposal is very beneficial. Centralizing NOAA's already ongoing work would not cost a lot.
Post a Comment