Trump’s Climate Change Denial Hits Key Federal Agency

Humans to blame for bulk of Arctic sea ice loss, study finds | news.com.au  — Australia's leading news site

OK, Mr. Trump, now you’ve gone over the line. You’ve callously attacked a critical federal agency I worked for earlier in my career and that works to protect the Pacific Northwest, where I live.. 

An administration that has demonstrated its resistance to science has taken another ill-advised step, firing 800 probationary employees at the of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In addition, about 500 employees left the agency on Friday after taking a so-called deferred resignation offer, the New York Times reported. 

This follows a Trump administration order to NOAA earlier this month to search for climate change-related keywords in its grant programs. The Commerce Department instructed NOAA and its divisions to review grants for specific terms like “climate” and “greenhouse gas” without clearly saying why, although there were suspicions it was tied to the new administration’s hostility toward climate change research.

It also follows an Associated Press report that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin, appointed by Trump, has privately urged the Trump administration the  to reconsider a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action against climate change. 

According to the Associated Press, in a report to the White House, Zeldin “called for a rewrite of the agency’s finding that determined planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, according to four people who were briefed on the matter but spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the recommendation is not public. The 2009 finding under the Clean Air Act is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources.”

The Trump administration is particularly resistant to climate science because taking the subject seriously would mean reducing the use of fossil fuels, an industry that supported and helped pay for Trump’s return to office and his commitment to American energy dominance.

The probationary employees pushed out at NOAA—who have been in their jobs for a short period and lack the protections afforded to staff members with longer tenure—received a blunt dismissal email on Thursday, according to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and transportation, which oversees NOAA. The email read in part: “[T]he Agency finds that you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and/or skills do not fit the Agency’s current needs.”

“The firings jeopardize our ability to forecast and respond to extreme weather events like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods—putting communities in harm’s way,” Cantwell said. “They also threaten our maritime commerce and endanger 1.7 million jobs that depend on commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries…This action is a direct hit to our economy, because NOAA’s specialized workforce provides products and services that support more than a third of the nation’s GDP.”

“American science, in other words, had performed a remarkable feat: it had given us a timely early warning of the single greatest danger our species has ever faced,” Bill McKibben wrote in the New Yorker. “I listed all the players involved because those agencies—the N.S.F., NOAANASA—are precisely the institutions now being told to scrub their Web sites and re-examine their grants for projects that run counter to the Administration’s diktat on climate—and “diversity.”

The attack on NOAA, one of the more visible signs of the Trump administration’s opposition to climate change activism, seems to foolishly reflect a view that blocking research will also halt the reality of long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.

NOAA’s Climate Change Program’s office manages competitive research programs in which NOAA funds high-priority climate science, assessments, decision support research, outreach, education, and capacity-building activities designed to advance our understanding of Earth’s climate system. It also aims to foster the application of this knowledge in risk management and adaptation efforts. The research is conducted across the United States and globally.

Project 2025, a policy blueprint published by the Heritage Foundation that is reflected in many of the actions taken by the Trump administration, says the agency is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry” and calls for it to be dismantled.

During his presidential campaign, Trump firmly disavowed any connection with, or even detailed knowledge of, Project 2025. He has nevertheless filled his new administration with numerous Project 2025 authors and contributors and is pursuing many of the project’s recommendations.

Oregon Democrats are going to get your kicker, one way or another

State Senator Jeff Golden wrote an Opinion column in The Oregonian recently calling for diversion of the next kicker, recently forecasted to be $1.8 billion, to a dedicated Wildfire Programs Fund, which the state treasurer would invest.

It’s just one more way for a hungry Democrat-run government to raid your pocketbook. 

The idea came out of a workgroup of 36 stakeholders chosen by Gov. Tina Kotek to deliberate over alternative funding sources for dealing with wildfires. 

The key options identified were:

  • Kicker Funds: One-time use to “jump-start” wildfire funding.
  • Bottle Bill Adjustment: increase the bottle deposit to include a non-refundable portion for wildfire funding.
  • Insurance retaliatory tax – Dedicate a portion of existing retaliatory taxes paid by out-of-state insurers to the State.
  • Ending Balance: Dedicate 0.5% of previous biennium’s appropriations (if there is an ending balance) to the Wildfire Fund. 
  • One time transfer from the Rainy Day Fund (RDF) – directed to wildfire.
  • Lottery Funds – Constitutionally dedicate a portion of lottery funds for wildfire.
  • Landowner assessment rates and existing structure – will be part of the solution. 

The proposal to create a Wildfire Programs Fund “stands out from the others,” Golden wrote.

“Funding for our programs would come not from the $1.8 billion principal—that would be preserved – but rather from the investment interest it earns.,” Golden wrote. “Assuming 5% annual return (a reasonable guess judging by the Treasury’s investment history), the fund would annually generate $90 million – $180 million each biennium – for wildfire programs. While that’s not enough to cover all our needs, it sure looks good relative to the $87 million budgeted in the current two-year cycle.”

The Legislature has fooled around with the kicker before. In 1991 and 1993, budget problems relating to Ballot Measure 5 of 1990 prompted lawmakers to suspend the kicker, withholding $246 million from taxpayers. Then, in 2007, lawmakers succeeded in diverting funds from the corporate kicker to a surplus account called the rainy day fund.

Public resistance to diversion of the kicker has historically been strong. As one current Reddit post says, “The Oregon State government is run as efficiently as an HOA. The kicker policy at least mandates them to return surpluses rather than letting this group of clowns spend it on whatever is fashionable and keeps them in office.”

There’s also long been suspicion that free-spending Democrats will take undue advantage of any relaxation in kicker policy.“This past session, I was approached multiple times by Democrats who wanted to use the kicker for some purpose, and their requests were well over $10 billion,” Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp, R-Bend, told OPB in 2023. “The reason I haven’t done any of that is, once you open the door, you’re going to spend it all.”

That’s still true.