Welcome to the Meteorology Matters podcast. You
know, for many of us, it really feels like the
world's weather is just getting more and more,
well, dynamic, unpredictable even, doesn't it?
It really does. We're seeing these extremes everywhere.
Exactly. Severe floods, just devastating communities,
and then these intense heat waves that are shattering
records left and right. Plus powerful storms
causing such widespread destruction. Yeah, it's
a lot. And understanding it, preparing for it,
it feels less like an option and more like, well,
a necessity now. Absolutely critical for our
lives right now. And that really brings us to
today's topic. Right. Because today we're going
to take a closer look, sort of pull back the
curtain on some recent shifts in federal policy
and funding. And these are shifts that directly
touch on environmental protection, climate science,
and crucially, our nation's disaster response
capabilities. So our mission today is really
to unpack the details of these policy changes.
We want to explore what they could actually mean
in the real world for everyone listening. And
consider how these shifts might ripple through
our ability to understand, predict, and ultimately
respond to the weather challenges we're all facing.
It's definitely a story of interconnected systems
and some very deliberate shifts happening right
now. So where should we start, maybe with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA? There's
been talk about a really fundamental shift in
its foundation. Well, let's start there. Because
just recently, actually, on Friday, July 18th,
2025, the EPA made this huge announcement. It
really sent shockwaves through the scientific
community. OK, what was it? They announced they
would be eliminating their core scientific research
arm, the Office of Research and Development.
Eliminating it entirely? Wow, that sounds...
Significant. It is. And we're not talking about
just, you know, a simple reorganization or shuffling
things around. This involves the planned firing
of hundreds of highly specialized scientists.
Hundreds? What kind of scientists are we talking
about? Oh, chemists, biologists, toxicologists.
The very people whose research forms the basis
for so much of what the EPA does. It's effectively,
well, gutting a critical part of the agency.
That's an enormous loss. Just the institutional
knowledge, the expertise. Is this something happening
just within the EPA or is it part of a bigger
picture? It definitely seems to fit into a larger
pattern. This action aligns pretty clearly with
the significant push we're seeing from the current
administration to, well, reduce the size of the
federal workforce and, frankly, dismantle parts
of various federal agencies. Right. I've heard
about that push. And this whole initiative got
a major boost, legally speaking, from a Supreme
Court ruling. That ruling basically allowed these
plans to move forward even though there were
ongoing legal challenges trying to stop them.
And it's worth noting that government scientists
specifically seem to have been particular targets
in these workforce reductions across the board.
So this isn't just about the EPA, then. It's
wider. OK, can you elaborate a bit on what this
specific office, the Office of Research and Development,
actually did? What was its role? Why is losing
it such a big deal? Well, for decades, this office,
the ORD, performed a really crucial function.
It provided the independent scientific research,
the bedrock, really, for almost all of the EPA's
policies and regulations. Independent being the
key word there, I imagine. Exactly. Think about
it without solid independent scientific data.
How can an agency effectively identify environmental
risks? How can it set protective standards that
actually hold up or even defend its regulations
if they get challenged in court? Right. It's
the foundation. It really was. Yeah. This office
acted as the agency's sort of scientific compass,
making sure policy decisions were grounded in
objective evidence, not just political wins or
industry pressure. So taking it away doesn't
just cut research jobs. No, it fundamentally
shifts the balance. It potentially opens the
door for policy goals or political considerations
to come before the independent science. That's
the big concern. That distinction is huge. Can
you give us some concrete examples? What kind
of work did this office do that impacts our daily
lives? Absolutely. For instance, the ORD was
responsible for really critical analyses, like
figuring out the risks posed by hazardous chemicals.
You know, stuff that might be in our air, our
water, maybe even products we use every day.
OK, like chemical safety assessments. What else?
They also did essential research on the health
impacts of wildfire smoke. That's become tragically
relevant for so many communities across the country
recently, hasn't it? Definitely. It feels like
it affects more people every year. And their
work also extended to investigating drinking
water contamination, especially looking at issues
related to practices like hydraulic fracturing
or fracking. Right. And I imagine their findings
weren't always popular with everyone. Well, that's
the crucial part. This independent research often
provided the scientific justification for stricter
environmental rules. And as you can imagine,
that frequently led to significant pushback from,
say, chemical manufacturers or other industries
whose operations would be directly impacted by
tougher regulations. So there was this inherent
tension. So their independent science pointed
towards needing more protection, which put them
at odds with industries wanting less regulations.
Okay, that certainly adds context. What are the
numbers? How many people are we talking about
losing, both in this science office and maybe
across the EPA as a whole? The numbers really
paint a stark picture. When President Trump first
took office, this science office, the ORD, had
about 1 ,155 employees. Okay, over a thousand.
Right. But since January 2025 alone, over 325
of those workers have already left. they accepted
these deferred resignation offers. What does
that mean, deferred resignation? It's essentially
an incentive package to get employees to leave
voluntarily. They get some benefits, maybe, but
they agree to leave before facing a potential
forced layoff. It lets the administration reduce
staff numbers more quietly without initiating
a big formal reduction in force, RAF, right away.
So it's a way to shrink the office without a
mass firing event yet. Exactly. But the uncertainty
for the roughly 830 employees still remaining
is incredibly high. Their future, their jobs
are very much up in the air right now. So hundreds
gone already, hundreds more just waiting. What
about the EPA overall? Has the whole agency seen
similar cuts? Yes. Looking agency -wide, the
picture is similar. The EPA started with around
16 ,155 employees under the Trump administration.
16 ,000. But now over 3 ,700 employees have either
left or are slated to leave through these offers,
firings, retirements, regular resignations, you
name it. Wow, over 3 ,700. Yeah. So that brings
the agency's total workforce down to about 12
,448 people. That's a staffing level we haven't
seen since, believe it or not, the Reagan administration
back in the 80s. The Reagan administration. That's
a massive rollback in federal capacity. Just
huge. How are people reacting? What are the union's
former officials saying about gutting the science
arm like this? The reaction has been pretty strong.
Concern, condemnation, particularly from the
unions representing EPA workers. The American
Federation of Government Employees Council 238.
They represent over 8 ,000 EPA workers. They
strongly condemned Friday's announcement. What
did they say? Justin Chen, he's the president
of that council, put it very powerfully. He said,
the science office is the heart and brain of
the EPA. The heart and brain. Wow. Yeah. And
he added, without it, we don't have the means
to assess impacts upon human health and the environment.
Its destruction will devastate public health
in our country. That's a pretty dire warning
about the potential long -term consequences for
public health, for environmental safety. Devastate
public health. That really frames the gravity
of these cuts. What about former high -ranking
officials, people who used to run things there?
Jennifer Ormez -Avaletta offered some really
sharp criticism. And she's someone with deep
experience, worked at the EPA for 40 years, even
led this very research office, the ORD, during
the first Trump administration. OK, so she knows
it inside out. What did she say? She called these
actions dismantling a world -class organization
and she stated very clearly the American people
are not going to be well served by this. She
also described the actions as very short -sighted
and added the way they're going about it is very
callous and very cruel. Strong words. Did she
raise other concerns? Yes. She and other experts
are also warning about this plan to potentially
move some of the remaining science functions
into a new department, one that's directly within
the EPA Administrator's office. What's the worry
there? The concern is that it threatens to politicize
the scientific research. By bringing it under
direct administrative control, you risk compromising
its independence, its integrity. The science
might start to follow the policy instead of informing
it. So it's not just the cuts themselves, but
how the remaining science might be structured
and potentially influenced. Okay, so what's the
administration's side of this? What's their rationale
for making these drastic changes? Well, Administrator
Lee Zeldin has been quite public about it. He's
consistently highlighted the fact that they've
cut dozens of environmental regulations. He frames
these actions as making it, quote, cheaper and
easier for industries to operate. So reducing
burdens on industry is a key goal. That seems
to be the main justification. The EPA has also
claimed significant financial savings from all
this. They're saying they've saved $748 .8 million
through what they call organizational improvements
in these staff reductions. Administrator Zeldin
has publicly emphasized a commitment to being
responsible stewards of your hard -earned tax
dollars. Right. So framing it as fiscal prudence,
efficiency, helping the economy by cutting red
tape, how are industry groups and maybe conservative
think tanks reacting? Are they backing these
moves? Well, there's definitely significant and
support from those corners. Chris John, he's
president of the American Chemistry Council,
that's a major chemical industry lobbying group.
He stated his organization, quote, supports EPA
evaluating its resources to ensure American taxpayer
dollars are being used efficiently and effectively.
That aligns pretty neatly with the longstanding
industry desire for, well, less stringent regulation.
Makes sense from their perspective. What about
think tanks? Conservative research organizations
have also been very vocal. The Heritage Foundation,
for example, in their Project 2025 blueprint,
which is this huge detailed plan for how a new
administration could overhaul the entire federal
government. They had specifically criticized
the EPA science office. What did they say was
wrong with it? They accused the office of being,
and I'm quoting here, bloated, unaccountable,
closed, outcome driven, hostile to public and
legislative input and inclined to pursue political
rather than purely scientific goals. So a fundamental
disagreement with how that office operated before.
That's quite an indictment. Were there other
groups calling for these kinds of cuts, maybe
targeting specific programs? Yes, definitely.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, another
conservative research organization, specifically
called for getting rid of or completely overhauling
the integrated risk information system that's
known as IRIS. And what does IRIS do? It's a
really crucial program that evaluates the toxicity
of chemicals. James Brokul, who used to be with
CEI and is now with the America First Policy
Institute, a group closely aligned with the Trump
administration, he argued that these IRIS evaluations
often rely on worst -case hazard assumptions
that fail to consider real -world exposure scenarios.
So the argument is that the evaluations are too
strict, not realistic enough? Essentially, yes.
It suggests a desire for evaluations that might
be seen as less burdensome to industries that
produce or use those chemicals. It fits right
into that broader deregulatory agenda we've been
talking about. OK. And how is this all communicated
internally? How did the staff find out their
research arm was being eliminated? Well, the
confirmation actually came through an email sent
out on a Friday evening. It was from Maureen
Guinn, the acting head of the office. Friday
evening. That's rough timing. Yeah. Her message
acknowledged the, quote, uncertainty and concern
among the staff. She urged them to remember to
take care of yourselves. And she announced an
upcoming town hall meeting for staff to discuss
these sweeping changes. It just highlights the
significant human impact, the emotional toll
these decisions are taking on the people involved.
Absolutely. An incredibly difficult time for
those scientists and employees. Wow. Okay, this
leads us almost directly to another major policy
shift, doesn't it? One that could have even broader
implications for how the country deals with climate
change. Yes, absolutely. Let's pivot to that
now. The really high stakes battle over climate
regulation, specifically focusing on the future
of what's known as the endangerment finding.
Right, the endangerment finding. That sounds
like a technical legal term, but my understanding
is its implications are massive. What would it
actually mean if it were repealed? You're right.
The implications would be huge, incredibly far
reaching. If this proposal from the EPA announced
just recently, Tuesday, July 29th, 2025, if it's
finalized, it would effectively wipe out all
EPA regulations on greenhouse gases from cars.
Those rules exist because of this finding. Just
cars, or does it go further? Oh, it goes much
further. It would also seriously undermine the
existing rules that limit emissions from power
plants and the rules controlling methane release
from oil and gas operations. So it basically
dismantles the EPA's main tool for regulating
climate pollution. Exactly it. It gets rid of
the core legal authority the EPA has used for
over a decade to regulate the pollutants warming
the planet. And Administrator Zeldin himself
called this, what was it? the largest deregulatory
action in the history of the United States. He
did. He stated, we do not have that power on
our own to decide as an agency that we're going
to combat global climate change because we give
ourselves that power. He framed it as reining
in agency overreach while still claiming his
aim is to balance economic growth with environmental
protection and committing to clean air and water.
So from the administration's view, it's about.
limiting agency power, prioritizing the economy.
And that really cuts to the heart of this whole
debate because that 2009 endangerment finding
wasn't just some arbitrary decision. It was a
formal conclusion by the EPA based on science.
What did it conclude exactly? It determined,
scientifically and legally, that greenhouse gases
CO2 being the main one pose a real threat to
public health and welfare. And that conclusion
was absolutely crucial. Why was it so critical?
Because it established the legal basis for the
EPA to regulate those gases as air pollutants
under the Clean Air Act. The new proposal directly
challenges that. It essentially argues the Clean
Air Act... doesn't give the EPA that specific
power to regulate greenhouse gases for climate
purposes. Wow. OK, that sounds like a direct
challenge, not just to the regulation, but to
the underlying science and the legal framework
itself. What are the critics saying? People who
disagree with this repeal? Well, Zealand Hoover,
who is a senior adviser at the EPA under President
Biden, didn't mince words. He called the move
not just an attack on science, but on common
sense. Common sense? How so? He pointed directly
to the National Climate Assessment. That's this
massive comprehensive report over 2 ,000 pages
detailing all the evidence of climate change
harms happening right here in the U .S. Hoover
urged people to think about the millions of Americans
who have lost their homes and livelihoods to
extreme fires, floods, and storms that are only
getting worse. He's making that direct link between
the science, the finding, and the real world
suffering people are experiencing. That's a powerful
connection, linking the policy directly to people's
lived experiences, the devastation from these
extreme weather events. What about the industries
most affected? Like automakers, what's their
take? The Alliance for Automotive Innovation,
their big trade group representing most U .S.
automakers, they said they're still studying
the proposal. But their president, John Bezella,
indicated they broadly support changing the policy.
Why? What's their reasoning? He argued that the
vehicle emissions rules finalized under the previous
administration simply aren't achievable given
today's market conditions and technology. He
thinks the rules need to be revised to reflect
reality, keep the industry competitive, allow
for consumer choice, but still aim for lower
emissions overall. So for them, it's about recalibrating
regulations they see as too strict, too costly
right now. Okay, that definitely aligns with
the broader economic arguments we heard earlier
about regulatory burdens. What are the conservative
think tanks saying specifically about this endangerment
finding? The endangerment finding has been a
major target for many conservatives and libertarians
for years. They see these climate regulations
as incredibly expensive and a classic example
of federal overreach. Right. Diana Furchgott
Roth over at the Heritage Foundation Center for
Energy, Climate and the Environment called it
a very expensive regulation. She argued it leads
to rules that raise the cost of energy and raise
the cost of transportation and that these costs
disproportionately burden the poor, burden farmers
and burden small businesses. So focusing on the
economic costs, particularly for certain groups.
Anyone else? Yeah, Myron Ebel, he's chairman
of the American Lands Council and was actually
on the EPA transition team earlier. He went even
further. He said, repealing this finding is crucial
for cementing the current administration's energy
legacy. Why? because it makes it much harder
for a future Democratic administration or a Green
Republican president to undo these deregulatory
changes. Ah, so it's strategic. It's not just
about the present, but about locking in a policy
direction for the long term, making it harder
to reverse course later. Exactly. It's about
limiting future options for climate action through
this particular legal avenue. This brings up
that whole cost -benefit debate again. We've
heard these regulations cost trillions, but then
others say the benefits are worth trillions.
Can you unpack that a bit? How can the numbers
be so different? It really comes down to what
you count. The EPA under Administrator Zeldin
has put out figures suggesting vehicle regulations
tied to the finding cost over a trillion dollars.
A trillion dollars. That's a huge number. It
is. But critics jump in immediately and say,
That estimate is fundamentally flawed because
it completely ignores the benefits of avoiding
those emissions. What kind of benefits are they
talking about? Things like fewer premature deaths
because of cleaner air, fewer hospital visits
for asthma, heart problems, respiratory illnesses,
lower health care costs overall. Under the Biden
administration, the EPA actually estimated that
these health and environmental benefits would
outweigh the costs by about a trillion dollars
through 2055. So it's a massive disagreement
based on whether you factor in the societal benefits
of cleaner air and a more stable climate or just
focus on the direct compliance costs for industry.
A trillion dollars in costs versus a trillion
dollars in net benefits. That's a staggering
difference in perspective. OK, let's talk legal
ground. This 2009 finding didn't just happen
in a vacuum, right? There is a Supreme Court
case involved. Absolutely. That's critical context.
Back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark
case called Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case,
the court explicitly said the EPA did have the
authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. So
the court already said they could do it. Yes.
That ruling directly paved the way for the 2009
endangerment finding and all the carbon limits
that followed. That's why legal experts are calling
the current administration's strategy of going
directly after the finding itself a really risky
legal move. Richard Reves, he's a law professor
at NYU, described it as trying to get the holy
grail, getting rid of the whole climate regulation
framework in one fell swoop instead of chipping
away at individual rules. But... He warned, if
you lose, you end up empty handed. It's an all
or nothing legal gamble. A high stakes bet. But
the Supreme Court looks very different now than
it did in 2007. Is that part of the calculation
here? Oh, absolutely. That's almost certainly
a huge factor in the strategy. Kenny Stein from
the Institute for Energy Research, that's a conservative
group. He argued that the original Massachusetts
VEPA ruling was based on shaky legal argument
anyway. And he believes it's been undermined
by more recent Supreme Court decisions. Like
which ones? He pointed to a 2022 ruling that
emphasized agencies need explicit permission
from Congress for major new powers, especially
ones with big economic consequences like regulating
greenhouse gases. Stein thinks that given the
massive change in the complexion of the Supreme
Court, the original Massachusetts decision would
likely be overruled pretty comprehensively if
a similar case reached the court today. So they're
banking on this current court being much more
receptive to their argument that the EPA overstepped
its authority. That seems to be the calculation,
yes. A belief that the legal ground has shifted
significantly in their favor. Okay, so what happens
next with this proposal? Is it a done deal? Not
yet. The EPA's proposal now goes into a mandatory
45 -day public comment period. Anyone can submit
comments, individuals, organizations, companies.
After that period closes, the EPA is legally
required to review and respond to those comments
before they can issue a final rule. And has the
administrator encouraged public input? Yes, Administrator
Zeldin explicitly invited public comments on
rescinding both the endangerment finding itself
and all the related greenhouse gas rules for
vehicles. They're clearly looking for public
support to bolster their case for this change.
OK, so let's game this out. What happens if this
repeal actually goes through, if it survives
the comment period and potential court challenges?
What are the ripple effects, say, for electric
vehicles or just future climate policy? The potential
consequences are pretty significant. Richard
Rivas, the NYU law professor, anticipates we'd
see a marked slowdown in investment in electric
vehicle technology. Maybe not overnight, but
if that primary regulatory pressure pushing automakers
towards EVs is removed or weakened, the pace
of innovation and investment could definitely
slow. Less incentive to invest in EVs. What about
legal challenges? Are environmental groups going
to fight this? Oh, absolutely. David Donaker,
a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense
Council in RDC, has already vowed they will challenge
the repeal. They plan to submit extensive comments,
and if the rule is finalized, they intend to
take the EPA to court. On what grounds? Donaker
argues the Clean Air Act unambiguously does include
greenhouse gases as air pollutants that harm
public health. He insists the law limits regulation
to science and health issues, not broad economic
policy decisions. He predicts pretty firmly that
the EPA will ultimately lose in court. But even
if they eventually lose in court, could there
be damage done in the meantime while the legal
fight plays out? That's a really critical point
Donnager raises. He warns about significant long
term impacts, even if the repeal doesn't ultimately
stand up legally. The whole process, proposing
it, fighting it in court could take years. And
during that time of regulatory uncertainty, he
fears it could put another generation of dirty
cars on the road because automakers might delay
shifting to cleaner vehicles. So years of potentially
higher emissions while the courts decide. Exactly.
And if, against the odds, the repeal does survive
the court challenges, then future administrations
would effectively be blocked from using the Clean
Air Act, arguably the most powerful existing
environmental law to tackle climate change. That
tool would be gone. That's huge. Doniger summed
it up powerfully. He said this move essentially
asks the American people who are living through
wildfires, floods, hurricanes, heat dumps, and
so on, not to believe what they're going through,
not to believe their own eyes. He thinks it will
seem mind -bogglingly false and out of touch,
given what people are experiencing with extreme
weather. Wow. That's a sobering perspective.
A high stakes legal and policy fight with incredibly
direct real world consequences for the environment,
for the climate, for all of us. And this ties
directly into our next big topic, doesn't it?
Because who responds when these climate related
disasters strike? That brings us to FEMA, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Right. And
the landscape there is also shifting dramatically,
especially as we head into what meteorologists
are warning could be a very active hurricane
season. What's the forecast looking like? Well,
the experts are predicting an above normal season.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA, they're forecasting somewhere between 13
to 19 named storms in the Atlantic. And importantly,
they expect three to five of those could become
major hurricanes. Three to five major hurricanes.
That's significant potential for damage. It is.
And Laura Grimm, who's the acting head at NOAA,
made a key point. She highlighted that hurricane
impacts aren't just coastal anymore. We saw it
last year with hurricanes Helene and Debbie significant
inland flooding can reach far beyond the coast
affecting communities that might not typically
think of themselves as being in hurricane territory.
So a potentially severe season with widespread
risk, but at the same time there's this cloud
of uncertainty hanging over FEMA's role. What's
causing that? Yet despite the series forecast,
there's this palpable uncertainty. because the
administration is sending very mixed, shifting
signals about what the federal government's role
in disaster response should even be. Mixed signals
how? Well, on one hand, the administration says
it remains, quote, laser -focused on disaster
response and protecting the American people.
But on the other hand, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, Kristi Noem, has publicly argued that
FEMA, as it's currently structured, is inefficient.
Inefficient. What's her vision for it? She argues
it should take more of a supportive role with
states taking the clear lead. She actually said
federal emergency management should be state
and locally led rather than how it has operated
for decades. And she even suggested this entire
agency needs to be eliminated as it exists today
and remade into a responsive agency. Eliminated
as it exists today. Wow. That's a fundamental
challenge to how disaster response has worked
for decades, especially heading into hurricane
season. It's a huge philosophical shift being
proposed. How has this rhetoric, this proposed
shift, actually played out in recent disasters?
And how are states reacting on the ground? Well,
interestingly, the rhetoric from administration
officials seemed to soften a bit, shifting more
towards reforming FEMA rather than eliminating
it entirely after those devastating floods hit
Texas earlier this month. What happened there?
Secretary Naum faced a lot of public criticism
over reports of a botched federal response to
the Texas floods. The Houston Chronicle's editorial
board even compared it to the failures during
Hurricane Katrina. suggesting serious problems
with federal coordination and aid delivery. That's
a damning comparison. How bad were the floods?
They were incredibly severe. At least 120 people
died. Over 100 were still missing last we heard.
And the early cost estimates are huge, somewhere
between $18 billion and $22 billion. That's devastating.
But the administration defended the response.
Yes. Despite the widespread criticism, President
Trump publicly praised Secretary Noem's handling
of the situation and dismissed reports that her
funding decisions had actually slowed down the
federal response efforts. So states are getting
these mixed messages, seeing criticism of federal
response. They must be feeling pretty uncertain
about what support they can actually count on.
How are they preparing? They really are grappling
with this uncertainty. States across the political
spectrum, red and blue. Louisiana's governor,
Jeff Landry, a Republican, was very frank. He
basically admitted he doesn't know what added
responsibilities his state might suddenly face
under a new federal approach. So they're trying
to figure it out on their own. Some are trying
to be proactive. A handful of states have set
up special task forces or commissions to strategize.
For example, in Georgia, a bipartisan group of
state lawmakers created a study committee specifically
focused on disaster mitigation. That shows concern
across party lines. Interesting. Any other examples?
Kentucky State Legislature actually passed a
law creating a task force just to prepare for
potential changes in FEMA funding and structure.
The Republican state senator who co -sponsored
that bill, Matthew Deneen, stressed that the
state needs to be agile, to be responsive, and
to be prepared given how unpredictable the federal
situation feels right now. So states are definitely
trying to brace themselves. What is FEMA itself
saying? What's the official line from the agency
about their role this season? Well, a spokesperson
for FEMA pushed back on the idea of uncertainty.
They stated there is no uncertainty about what
FEMA will be doing this hurricane season. And
they added... The old processes are being replaced
because they failed Americans in real emergencies
for decades. So their line is that these changes
aren't weakening response, they're actually improving
it by fixing past failures. That seems to be
the official position. They're framing the changes
as necessary improvements, despite all the external
concerns about reduced federal capacity and support.
But these kinds of fundamental changes, shifting
responsibility to states, that must have huge
financial implications, right? Especially for
states whose budgets are already stretched thin.
That's a critical point, and it's where you really
see the connections between these different policy
shifts. States are already facing enormous budget
pressures. Federal lawmakers have been cutting
spending across the board, health care, infrastructure,
and yes, natural disasters. And there was a specific
FEMA program cut recently that hit disaster preparedness
funding hard wasn't there yes a major one back
in april fema suspended its building resilient
infrastructure and communities program known
as brick that single cut eliminated eight hundred
and eighty two million dollars in federal funding
eight hundred and eighty two million dollars
What did the BRIC program actually do? It was
specifically designed to help communities reduce
their long -term hazard risks before a disaster
strikes. It gave economic support to states so
they could invest in things like strengthening
the infrastructure, improving building codes,
flood mitigation projects, proactive measures.
Losing it removes a crucial source of funding
for prevention. That sounds exactly like the
kind of program needed to build resilience and
probably save money in the long run by avoiding
future damage. How did states react to losing
BRIC? The reaction was pretty strong. Twenty
states actually sued FEMA over it. They alleged
the agency unlawfully terminated grants that
Congress had already approved. What was their
argument in the lawsuit? They emphasized that
many important projects, projects that had been
in development for years designed specifically
to prevent devastating damage, are now just left
unfinished or paused indefinitely, leaving communities
more vulnerable. How did FEMA defend the cut?
An agency spokesperson defended the decision
by calling BRIC a wasteful and ineffective FEMA
program. And they added a comment noting that
two -thirds of the counties that had received
grants under the program had voted for Trump
in 2024. Wait, they brought voting patterns into
it. They did. Which, you know, introduced a pretty
clear political dimension into the justification
for suspending a disaster resilience program.
It suggested that political alignment might have
factored into how the program's effectiveness
was judged. That definitely adds another layer.
Okay, so states are losing proactive funding
like brick. What's the broader financial impact,
especially when you combine these cuts with other
federal changes happening? Colin Ford, who directs
the fiscal risk project at the Pew Charitable
Trusts, put it very clearly. He said these moves
are compounding the pressures already hitting
state budgets. States were already struggling
with the rising costs of disasters and traditional
budgeting methods were beginning to fall short
even before these new federal cuts. So if states
now have to spend more on disaster prep themselves?
It inevitably comes at the cost of trade -offs
in other policy areas, as Ford warned. If more
state money has to go to disaster readiness or
recovery, it might mean less money for schools,
roads, public safety, other essential services.
It forces really difficult choices, a kind of
zero -sum game for state budgets. And it's not
just disaster funding cuts creating pressure,
right? You mentioned health care earlier. How
does that fit in? Absolutely. It compounds the
problem significantly. Think about broader federal
cuts, particularly the Medicaid services. There
are projections, for instance, that around 16
million Americans could lose their health insurance
by 2034 under policies being discussed or implemented.
16 million. Yeah. And that likely forces states
to pick up a much bigger share of the rising
medical costs for their residents. Representative
Jared Moskovitz. He's a Democrat from Florida,
used to be the state's emergency management director.
He painted a really stark picture. What did he
predict? He grimly predicted that if states lose
FEMA reimbursement for disasters, on top of the
hole they just blew in their health care budget
because of the lack of federal funding, then
there are states that are just a ticking time
bomb. It highlights this potential cascade of
financial crises hitting states from multiple
directions at once. A ticking time bomb. That's
a terrifying image, that confluence of pressures.
So given this potential gap, what are the practical
solutions? How can states bridge this disaster
preparedness funding issue if the federal money
isn't there like it used to be? Well, experts
like Matthew Sanders, also at Pew, emphasize
that states absolutely need to increase their
own spending on long -term risk reduction. Because,
as he says, it's always cheaper to reduce risk,
to avoid risk, than it is to recover from a disaster.
That's just fundamental. Cheaper to prevent than
repair? Makes sense. But—and this is the huge
but— He underscored that historically, the federal
government has been the predominant funder for
these kinds of proactive, large -scale resilience
projects. So if there are major federal shortfalls,
it creates a gap that's going to need to be filled
from other sources. And states are left scrambling
to find those sources, often by cutting elsewhere.
Are we seeing states already trying to adapt,
trying to find ways to cope with this new reality?
Yes. Some states are definitely trying to be
proactive, despite the challenges. For example,
after Hurricane Helene hit hard last fall, Georgia
recommended updates to its building codes and
created a reforestation tax credit, both aimed
at long -term resilience. That tax credit was
signed into law back in May. So policy changes
at the state level, what else? Emergency management
agencies in places like North Carolina and South
Carolina are actively exploring more collaborations
with the private sector. They're also trying
to build stronger connections with other state
emergency management groups to share resources,
expertise, best practices. Trying to pool resources.
Right. The spokesperson for North Carolina's
governor, Josh Stein, stated pretty bluntly that
eliminating FEMA entirely would be a man -made
disaster. They urged for working together to
improve the agency, not dismantle it. And interestingly
in South Dakota, the Republican Lieutenant Governor
Tony Van Housen is leading a state task force
specifically created to prepare for potential
changes at FEMA. He expressed sympathy for federal
spending issues, but stressed they desperately
need details on what the cuts actually mean for
their state's responsibilities. So states are
trying to adapt, trying to collaborate, trying
to plan. But they're clearly facing a real uphill
battle without that consistent federal funding
and clear guidance. You know, all these discussions,
the EPA changes, the FEMA uncertainty, the disaster
response capacity, they all ultimately tie back
to our fundamental understanding of climate and
weather itself. Exactly. Which brings us to our
next section concerning what feels like a retreat
from climate monitoring itself. Specifically,
the proposed closure of the iconic Mauna Loa
Observatory. This sounds really serious, what's
being proposed. It is quite significant. President
Trump's proposed budget for 2026 explicitly targets
the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii for closure.
But it goes further. It also aims to eliminate
almost all climate research currently done by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA. Almost all of NOAA's climate research.
That's what the proposal indicates. It includes
defunding many other climate labs and essentially
dismantling the entire U .S. government's network
for monitoring greenhouse gases. Mauna Loa. That
name is so familiar in climate discussions. What
makes that specific observatory so important?
Why is it considered such a unique, almost perfect
spot? Mauna Loa sits way up high, over 11 ,100
feet above sea level on a Hawaiian volcano. It's
this stark landscape. black rocks, white clouds,
blue sky. Its isolation and altitude are key.
It samples air that's largely undisturbed by
local pollution or vegetation effects. So it
gets a really clean air sample. Exactly. It makes
it one of the absolute best places on the entire
planet for accurately measuring atmospheric greenhouse
gases over the long term. It's considered indispensable
by scientists worldwide because the data is so
consistent, so pure, and stretches back so far.
It's like having this perfectly calibrated sensor
in the cleanest possible global air mass. And
this is where the famous Keeling curve comes
from, right? Can you remind us about that graph
and why it's so iconic? That's right. The Keeling
curve. Known the world over, originated from
continuous CO2 readings collected right there
at Mauna Loa, starting way back in 1958 by Charles
David Keeling. It's that simple but powerful
upward swooping line you see everywhere. What
does it show? It vividly charts the steady, undeniable,
and frankly accelerating rise of carbon dioxide
in our atmosphere over the past seven decades.
And it directly links that rise to nations burning
ever more oil, gas, and coal. What are the actual
numbers? When kearing started in 1958, the CO2
concentration was about 316 parts per million.
Now, it's over 430 parts per million. Just in
2024, the average was 424 .61 ppm. That's a huge
increase. It is. And Lisa Gromlich, an emeritus
climate scientist, pointed out something profound.
She said that data from Mauna Loa provided the
definitive, undeniable proof that humans were
capable of changing the entire planet's climate.
It made it so clear that we were moving beyond
natural variability and that fossil fuel burning
was causing it. It was basically the smoking
gun for human -caused climate change. So this
one remote spot gave us the answer to one of
the biggest questions of our time. What are scientists
saying now about the proposal to just shut it
down and defund all this monitoring? Lisa Gromlich
called the closure proposal frankly inconceivable.
She highlighted that while a lot of climate science
is complex, this iconic healing curve record
is something that can be grasped by almost anyone.
It's a clear visual. She asked, why, for relatively
little cost, would we want to lose that ability?
Good question. What about former agency heads?
Rick Spinrad, who led NOAA during the Biden administration,
used a great analogy. He said consistent climate
records are like regular doctor checkups for
the planet. You wouldn't just stop going to the
doctor if you wanted to stay healthy, right?
He argued we shouldn't stop monitoring the planet
if we want to understand and address its changing
health. That makes sense. But Mauna Loa isn't
working completely alone, is it? Is it part of
a bigger network that's also threatened by these
cuts? Yes, that's a really important point. Mauna
Loa is a crucial piece, but it's part of a much
larger, globally significant network run by NOAA.
What other sites are involved? NOAA operates
three other key long -term monitoring stations,
one up in Barrow, Alaska, one in American Samoa
in the South Pacific, and one right at the geographic
South Pole in Antarctica. So covering the globe
from north to south. Exactly. These four stations
working together are what allow scientists to
calculate the global average carbon dioxide trend.
They give us that comprehensive planetary overview.
The proposed budget wouldn't just close Mauna
Loa. It would close all four. All four. What
would that mean? It means the United States would
lose its unique poll to poll view. of greenhouse
gases. It's a consistent long -term network that
other countries simply can't replicate easily
or quickly. It would create a massive gap in
our global understanding. A huge data gap. And
how do they collect samples beyond these main
stations? I think I heard something about a flask
network. Yes, NOAA also runs a vital flask network.
They collect air samples in literal flasks from
remote locations all around the world, mountains,
islands, ships. And where do those samples go?
They get sent back. and meticulously analyzed
at NOAA's Global Monitoring Lab in Boulder, Colorado.
And guess what? That central lab in Boulder is
also targeted by these proposed budget cuts.
So the whole system is under threat. Are there
other networks doing this? There are other air
sampling networks around the world run by different
countries or institutions. But frankly, none
have the same comprehensive coverage, the long
term consistency or the sheer volume and quality
of data provided by Noah's network. It's really
a cornerstone of global monitoring, providing
critical ground truth data that everyone relies
on. And presumably they're tracking more than
just CO2 at these sites. What else would we lose?
That's another crucial point. These observatories
track a much wider range of atmospheric components
than just carbon dioxide. They monitor methane,
which is a much more potent greenhouse gas in
the short term. They track nitrous oxide, aerosols,
substances that deplete the ozone layer, soot.
Particulate pollution a whole suite of things
right and even subtle changes in solar radiation
weather patterns wind patterns Collecting all
this data together is what allows scientists
to get a truly holistic Nuance picture of our
atmosphere's health and understand the complex
factors driving climate change Losing that comprehensive
view would be a major setback. Okay. So what
are the real -world? Consequences then if we
lose all this data from Mauna Loa the whole Noah
Network What does that mean for us, practically
speaking, our ability to understand, predict,
protect ourselves? Rick Spinrad put it starkly.
He said, without this data, we'd lose large areas
of observation and make it harder to understand
where greenhouse gases are coming from and where
they're going. Just fundamentally harder to track
the problem. What does that mean for prediction?
It makes it exponentially harder to accurately
assess long -term climate trends, harder to pinpoint
the specific causes of the changes we're seeing,
and crucially, harder to make better, more precise
predictions for extreme weather events, those
devastating heat waves, droughts, floods we were
talking about earlier. So it affects disaster
preparedness too. Absolutely. It would hinder
our ability to identify the places most vulnerable
to climate impacts. It would make it harder to
find promising locations for potential carbon
dioxide removal projects. harder to even verify
if those kinds of efforts are actually working.
Right. You can't measure success if you stop
measuring. Exactly. Spinrad warned, it's not
just the climate mission that gets compromised.
It's the ability to protect people and property
for things like wildfire. So much is lost with
the elimination and termination of these labs.
It directly impacts our ability to prepare for
and mitigate future disasters. That's incredibly
alarming. It touches everything from basic science
to protecting lives and property. What about
the international picture? What message does
shutting down this world -renowned monitoring
send globally? Ralph Keeling, he's a climate
scientist at Scripps, and importantly, the son
of Charles Keeling, who started the Mauna Loa
curves, he emphasized that NOAA's monitoring
effort is really the backbone of the global effort
to track greenhouse gases. The backbone? Yeah.
He stressed that scientists and governments all
over the world rely heavily on the Keeling curve
data and the broader NOAA network data to calibrate
their own measurements and build reliable global
cl - climate models. Abandoning Mauna Loa, he
said, would send yet another clear signal to
the world that the United States is no longer
serious about climate change. That's a powerful
statement, undermining U .S. scientific leadership
and potentially global cooperation on climate.
It certainly risks doing that, especially when
tackling climate change absolutely requires global
collaboration and shared, trusted data. It seems
so incredibly clear listening to all this that
these aren't just isolated decisions happening
in different agencies. These proposed cuts and
policy shifts at EPA, at FEMA, at NOAA. They
feel deeply, maybe even dangerously interconnected.
That's the absolutely essential takeaway here.
We need to connect the dots. OK, let's try. If
you have regulatory reductions at the EPA aimed
at making things cheaper and easier for industries,
then a direct and frankly predictable potential
consequence is more environmental degradation
and critically for climate, potentially higher
greenhouse gas emissions. If there's less oversight,
less regulation, the incentive to pollute less
is naturally diminished. Right. And if industries
are potentially emitting more, at the exact same
time, the system is designed to precisely track
those emissions. Monoloa, the whole NOAA network
we just discussed, are being dismantled. Exactly.
It's this compounding effect. More pollution
potentially going into the atmosphere and less
ability to accurately measure and track it. And
a direct consequence of that could well be an
acceleration, an exacerbation. of climate change
itself, which means potentially more frequent,
more intense, extreme weather events. More of
those floods, hurricanes, heatwaves, wildfires
that communities across the country are already
struggling with at an alarming rate. It really
does risk creating a dangerous feedback loop.
Less regulation today, potentially leading to
more severe climate impacts tomorrow? So we could
have human activity, potentially less regulated,
contributing more to these severe weather events,
which then naturally demand more intervention,
more resources from disaster response agencies.
But at the exact same time, the main federal
disaster agency, FEMA, is facing budget cuts
and its whole operational model is being shifted
to put more responsibility and more financial
burden onto the states. And that combination
creates a truly critical, potentially dangerous
situation for American citizens. You could find
people in a far more precarious position, less
prepared, less supported, less able to adapt
and survive the increasing frequency and intensity
of these climate and weather related disasters.
Especially with cuts to proactive programs like
that BRIC program for resilience we talked about.
Exactly. Cutting proactive prevention further
diminishes resilience right at the local level.
just when it's needed most. It really does look
like a deeply concerning potential feedback loop.
The problem gets bigger, but the capacity to
deal with it shrinks. It absolutely sounds like
a potential vicious cycle where the impacts intensify,
but our collective ability to manage them is
deliberately reduced. Of course, the administration
and its supporters would frame this very differently.
Oh, absolutely. While critics are raising alarms
about this vicious cycle, potentially hurting
average Americans by increasing their vulnerability,
The administration frames these changes entirely
differently. They see them as necessary steps
for boosting economic growth, ensuring fiscal
responsibility by cutting federal spending and
streamlining what they view as bloated government.
So getting rid of regulatory overreach that they
believe stifled industry and burdened taxpayers.
Precisely. It's presented as ultimately benefiting
the nation by unshackling the economy. It really
comes down to a fundamental disagreement about
how you weigh the costs and benefits the economic
cost of regulation versus the societal and environmental
costs of not regulating or of reducing disaster
preparedness. Very different priorities. Wow.
It's clear these are incredibly complex issues
with such profound and interconnected implications
for every single one of us. Okay, let's try to
recap briefly. We've talked about major changes
at the Environmental Protection Agency, the elimination
of its core science research arm, the proposed
repeal of the endangerment, finding potentially
reshaping environmental quality and climate regulation
for years to come. Right. And we explored the
significant uncertainty now swirling around FEMA,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This
is happening just as we face forecasts for an
active hurricane season. And there are real concerns
about whether states can actually shoulder more
of the disaster response burden without adequate
federal support and funding. And then we delved
into the potentially devastating consequences
of defunding critical climate monitoring infrastructure,
like the iconic Mauna Loa Observatory and the
wider NOAA network. Losing that data could seriously
cripple our ability to understand, predict, and
respond to our rapidly changing planet. It impacts
everything from long -term climate projections
to immediate wildfire and flood warnings. Absolutely.
These shifts aren't happening in isolation. They
have truly far -reaching implications for public
health, for the quality of our environment, and
for the resilience of individuals and communities
across the entire nation. It just underscores
how vital it is for all of us to stay informed,
to really try and understand these crucial issues
as they continue to unfold, which leaves us with
a pretty big question to ponder, doesn't it?
It does. As our planet continues to change, perhaps
at an accelerating rate, What happens to our
collective ability to understand, predict, and
respond when the very systems designed to monitor,
regulate, and protect us are themselves undergoing
such profound and potentially damaging transformation?
That's the critical question. And for listeners
who want to keep digging into weather patterns,
climate science and how these kinds of changes
might impact them personally, definitely make
sure to follow meteorologist Rob Jones. Where
can people find him? You can find him on Instagram.
His handle is just meteorologist. He's also on
TikTok at TV Meteorologist and over on YouTube.
Just search for Rob Jones Hurricane. You'll find
his channel there. And that's also where you
can find the playlist for this Meteorology Matters
podcast. We really encourage you to explore these
topics further.