WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.799
Welcome to the Meteorology Matters podcast. You

00:00:02.799 --> 00:00:05.459
know, for many of us, it really feels like the

00:00:05.459 --> 00:00:08.060
world's weather is just getting more and more,

00:00:08.339 --> 00:00:12.199
well, dynamic, unpredictable even, doesn't it?

00:00:12.279 --> 00:00:14.019
It really does. We're seeing these extremes everywhere.

00:00:14.240 --> 00:00:17.100
Exactly. Severe floods, just devastating communities,

00:00:17.100 --> 00:00:19.879
and then these intense heat waves that are shattering

00:00:19.879 --> 00:00:22.519
records left and right. Plus powerful storms

00:00:22.519 --> 00:00:25.039
causing such widespread destruction. Yeah, it's

00:00:25.039 --> 00:00:28.079
a lot. And understanding it, preparing for it,

00:00:29.040 --> 00:00:32.479
it feels less like an option and more like, well,

00:00:32.740 --> 00:00:34.820
a necessity now. Absolutely critical for our

00:00:34.820 --> 00:00:36.719
lives right now. And that really brings us to

00:00:36.719 --> 00:00:39.039
today's topic. Right. Because today we're going

00:00:39.039 --> 00:00:40.619
to take a closer look, sort of pull back the

00:00:40.619 --> 00:00:43.240
curtain on some recent shifts in federal policy

00:00:43.240 --> 00:00:45.259
and funding. And these are shifts that directly

00:00:45.259 --> 00:00:47.679
touch on environmental protection, climate science,

00:00:48.140 --> 00:00:50.880
and crucially, our nation's disaster response

00:00:50.880 --> 00:00:53.200
capabilities. So our mission today is really

00:00:53.200 --> 00:00:56.500
to unpack the details of these policy changes.

00:00:56.600 --> 00:00:59.140
We want to explore what they could actually mean

00:00:59.140 --> 00:01:02.200
in the real world for everyone listening. And

00:01:02.200 --> 00:01:04.760
consider how these shifts might ripple through

00:01:04.760 --> 00:01:07.659
our ability to understand, predict, and ultimately

00:01:07.659 --> 00:01:09.659
respond to the weather challenges we're all facing.

00:01:09.780 --> 00:01:11.659
It's definitely a story of interconnected systems

00:01:11.659 --> 00:01:15.260
and some very deliberate shifts happening right

00:01:15.260 --> 00:01:17.599
now. So where should we start, maybe with the

00:01:17.599 --> 00:01:20.500
Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA? There's

00:01:20.500 --> 00:01:22.500
been talk about a really fundamental shift in

00:01:22.500 --> 00:01:25.079
its foundation. Well, let's start there. Because

00:01:25.079 --> 00:01:27.780
just recently, actually, on Friday, July 18th,

00:01:27.819 --> 00:01:31.519
2025, the EPA made this huge announcement. It

00:01:31.519 --> 00:01:33.819
really sent shockwaves through the scientific

00:01:33.819 --> 00:01:35.799
community. OK, what was it? They announced they

00:01:35.799 --> 00:01:38.200
would be eliminating their core scientific research

00:01:38.200 --> 00:01:40.519
arm, the Office of Research and Development.

00:01:40.739 --> 00:01:43.140
Eliminating it entirely? Wow, that sounds...

00:01:43.200 --> 00:01:45.340
Significant. It is. And we're not talking about

00:01:45.340 --> 00:01:48.260
just, you know, a simple reorganization or shuffling

00:01:48.260 --> 00:01:51.019
things around. This involves the planned firing

00:01:51.019 --> 00:01:53.700
of hundreds of highly specialized scientists.

00:01:54.219 --> 00:01:56.620
Hundreds? What kind of scientists are we talking

00:01:56.620 --> 00:01:59.939
about? Oh, chemists, biologists, toxicologists.

00:02:00.840 --> 00:02:04.120
The very people whose research forms the basis

00:02:04.120 --> 00:02:08.300
for so much of what the EPA does. It's effectively,

00:02:08.300 --> 00:02:10.960
well, gutting a critical part of the agency.

00:02:11.159 --> 00:02:14.219
That's an enormous loss. Just the institutional

00:02:14.219 --> 00:02:17.240
knowledge, the expertise. Is this something happening

00:02:17.240 --> 00:02:20.479
just within the EPA or is it part of a bigger

00:02:20.479 --> 00:02:22.659
picture? It definitely seems to fit into a larger

00:02:22.659 --> 00:02:25.590
pattern. This action aligns pretty clearly with

00:02:25.590 --> 00:02:27.250
the significant push we're seeing from the current

00:02:27.250 --> 00:02:29.810
administration to, well, reduce the size of the

00:02:29.810 --> 00:02:32.210
federal workforce and, frankly, dismantle parts

00:02:32.210 --> 00:02:34.110
of various federal agencies. Right. I've heard

00:02:34.110 --> 00:02:35.889
about that push. And this whole initiative got

00:02:35.889 --> 00:02:38.590
a major boost, legally speaking, from a Supreme

00:02:38.590 --> 00:02:41.389
Court ruling. That ruling basically allowed these

00:02:41.389 --> 00:02:43.409
plans to move forward even though there were

00:02:43.409 --> 00:02:45.449
ongoing legal challenges trying to stop them.

00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:49.120
And it's worth noting that government scientists

00:02:49.120 --> 00:02:52.060
specifically seem to have been particular targets

00:02:52.060 --> 00:02:54.340
in these workforce reductions across the board.

00:02:54.919 --> 00:02:57.379
So this isn't just about the EPA, then. It's

00:02:57.379 --> 00:03:01.379
wider. OK, can you elaborate a bit on what this

00:03:01.379 --> 00:03:04.000
specific office, the Office of Research and Development,

00:03:04.180 --> 00:03:07.740
actually did? What was its role? Why is losing

00:03:07.740 --> 00:03:10.539
it such a big deal? Well, for decades, this office,

00:03:10.819 --> 00:03:13.159
the ORD, performed a really crucial function.

00:03:13.699 --> 00:03:15.860
It provided the independent scientific research,

00:03:16.780 --> 00:03:20.300
the bedrock, really, for almost all of the EPA's

00:03:20.300 --> 00:03:22.580
policies and regulations. Independent being the

00:03:22.580 --> 00:03:24.840
key word there, I imagine. Exactly. Think about

00:03:24.840 --> 00:03:27.599
it without solid independent scientific data.

00:03:28.259 --> 00:03:31.400
How can an agency effectively identify environmental

00:03:31.400 --> 00:03:33.719
risks? How can it set protective standards that

00:03:33.719 --> 00:03:36.180
actually hold up or even defend its regulations

00:03:36.180 --> 00:03:38.000
if they get challenged in court? Right. It's

00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:40.120
the foundation. It really was. Yeah. This office

00:03:40.120 --> 00:03:42.659
acted as the agency's sort of scientific compass,

00:03:42.659 --> 00:03:45.080
making sure policy decisions were grounded in

00:03:45.080 --> 00:03:47.879
objective evidence, not just political wins or

00:03:47.879 --> 00:03:49.879
industry pressure. So taking it away doesn't

00:03:49.879 --> 00:03:52.460
just cut research jobs. No, it fundamentally

00:03:52.460 --> 00:03:54.900
shifts the balance. It potentially opens the

00:03:54.900 --> 00:03:57.310
door for policy goals or political considerations

00:03:57.310 --> 00:03:59.169
to come before the independent science. That's

00:03:59.169 --> 00:04:02.169
the big concern. That distinction is huge. Can

00:04:02.169 --> 00:04:04.289
you give us some concrete examples? What kind

00:04:04.289 --> 00:04:07.349
of work did this office do that impacts our daily

00:04:07.349 --> 00:04:11.310
lives? Absolutely. For instance, the ORD was

00:04:11.310 --> 00:04:14.550
responsible for really critical analyses, like

00:04:14.550 --> 00:04:18.029
figuring out the risks posed by hazardous chemicals.

00:04:18.319 --> 00:04:20.980
You know, stuff that might be in our air, our

00:04:20.980 --> 00:04:23.379
water, maybe even products we use every day.

00:04:23.500 --> 00:04:25.819
OK, like chemical safety assessments. What else?

00:04:26.019 --> 00:04:27.899
They also did essential research on the health

00:04:27.899 --> 00:04:31.600
impacts of wildfire smoke. That's become tragically

00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:33.779
relevant for so many communities across the country

00:04:33.779 --> 00:04:35.639
recently, hasn't it? Definitely. It feels like

00:04:35.639 --> 00:04:37.899
it affects more people every year. And their

00:04:37.899 --> 00:04:40.079
work also extended to investigating drinking

00:04:40.079 --> 00:04:43.000
water contamination, especially looking at issues

00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:45.279
related to practices like hydraulic fracturing

00:04:45.279 --> 00:04:47.360
or fracking. Right. And I imagine their findings

00:04:47.360 --> 00:04:49.680
weren't always popular with everyone. Well, that's

00:04:49.680 --> 00:04:52.560
the crucial part. This independent research often

00:04:52.560 --> 00:04:55.040
provided the scientific justification for stricter

00:04:55.040 --> 00:04:57.480
environmental rules. And as you can imagine,

00:04:57.839 --> 00:05:00.620
that frequently led to significant pushback from,

00:05:00.620 --> 00:05:03.339
say, chemical manufacturers or other industries

00:05:03.339 --> 00:05:06.100
whose operations would be directly impacted by

00:05:06.100 --> 00:05:08.220
tougher regulations. So there was this inherent

00:05:08.220 --> 00:05:10.720
tension. So their independent science pointed

00:05:10.720 --> 00:05:13.420
towards needing more protection, which put them

00:05:13.420 --> 00:05:15.519
at odds with industries wanting less regulations.

00:05:15.370 --> 00:05:18.050
Okay, that certainly adds context. What are the

00:05:18.050 --> 00:05:19.829
numbers? How many people are we talking about

00:05:19.829 --> 00:05:22.550
losing, both in this science office and maybe

00:05:22.550 --> 00:05:25.009
across the EPA as a whole? The numbers really

00:05:25.009 --> 00:05:27.410
paint a stark picture. When President Trump first

00:05:27.410 --> 00:05:29.990
took office, this science office, the ORD, had

00:05:29.990 --> 00:05:32.750
about 1 ,155 employees. Okay, over a thousand.

00:05:32.829 --> 00:05:36.829
Right. But since January 2025 alone, over 325

00:05:36.829 --> 00:05:39.220
of those workers have already left. they accepted

00:05:39.220 --> 00:05:41.259
these deferred resignation offers. What does

00:05:41.259 --> 00:05:43.779
that mean, deferred resignation? It's essentially

00:05:43.779 --> 00:05:46.000
an incentive package to get employees to leave

00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:49.139
voluntarily. They get some benefits, maybe, but

00:05:49.139 --> 00:05:51.399
they agree to leave before facing a potential

00:05:51.399 --> 00:05:54.079
forced layoff. It lets the administration reduce

00:05:54.079 --> 00:05:56.439
staff numbers more quietly without initiating

00:05:56.439 --> 00:05:59.920
a big formal reduction in force, RAF, right away.

00:06:00.120 --> 00:06:01.839
So it's a way to shrink the office without a

00:06:01.839 --> 00:06:05.139
mass firing event yet. Exactly. But the uncertainty

00:06:05.139 --> 00:06:08.730
for the roughly 830 employees still remaining

00:06:08.730 --> 00:06:11.829
is incredibly high. Their future, their jobs

00:06:11.829 --> 00:06:14.110
are very much up in the air right now. So hundreds

00:06:14.110 --> 00:06:17.209
gone already, hundreds more just waiting. What

00:06:17.209 --> 00:06:20.230
about the EPA overall? Has the whole agency seen

00:06:20.230 --> 00:06:22.970
similar cuts? Yes. Looking agency -wide, the

00:06:22.970 --> 00:06:25.410
picture is similar. The EPA started with around

00:06:25.410 --> 00:06:28.629
16 ,155 employees under the Trump administration.

00:06:28.910 --> 00:06:32.649
16 ,000. But now over 3 ,700 employees have either

00:06:32.649 --> 00:06:34.930
left or are slated to leave through these offers,

00:06:35.230 --> 00:06:37.750
firings, retirements, regular resignations, you

00:06:37.750 --> 00:06:40.910
name it. Wow, over 3 ,700. Yeah. So that brings

00:06:40.910 --> 00:06:43.709
the agency's total workforce down to about 12

00:06:43.709 --> 00:06:46.790
,448 people. That's a staffing level we haven't

00:06:46.790 --> 00:06:49.269
seen since, believe it or not, the Reagan administration

00:06:49.269 --> 00:06:51.629
back in the 80s. The Reagan administration. That's

00:06:51.629 --> 00:06:54.529
a massive rollback in federal capacity. Just

00:06:54.529 --> 00:06:58.149
huge. How are people reacting? What are the union's

00:06:58.149 --> 00:07:00.910
former officials saying about gutting the science

00:07:00.910 --> 00:07:04.829
arm like this? The reaction has been pretty strong.

00:07:05.470 --> 00:07:08.790
Concern, condemnation, particularly from the

00:07:08.790 --> 00:07:11.500
unions representing EPA workers. The American

00:07:11.500 --> 00:07:14.480
Federation of Government Employees Council 238.

00:07:14.600 --> 00:07:17.519
They represent over 8 ,000 EPA workers. They

00:07:17.519 --> 00:07:19.720
strongly condemned Friday's announcement. What

00:07:19.720 --> 00:07:22.180
did they say? Justin Chen, he's the president

00:07:22.180 --> 00:07:24.000
of that council, put it very powerfully. He said,

00:07:24.180 --> 00:07:26.959
the science office is the heart and brain of

00:07:26.959 --> 00:07:29.660
the EPA. The heart and brain. Wow. Yeah. And

00:07:29.660 --> 00:07:31.639
he added, without it, we don't have the means

00:07:31.639 --> 00:07:34.180
to assess impacts upon human health and the environment.

00:07:34.560 --> 00:07:36.439
Its destruction will devastate public health

00:07:36.439 --> 00:07:38.339
in our country. That's a pretty dire warning

00:07:38.339 --> 00:07:40.459
about the potential long -term consequences for

00:07:40.459 --> 00:07:43.120
public health, for environmental safety. Devastate

00:07:43.120 --> 00:07:45.040
public health. That really frames the gravity

00:07:45.040 --> 00:07:47.120
of these cuts. What about former high -ranking

00:07:47.120 --> 00:07:49.100
officials, people who used to run things there?

00:07:49.439 --> 00:07:51.800
Jennifer Ormez -Avaletta offered some really

00:07:51.800 --> 00:07:54.139
sharp criticism. And she's someone with deep

00:07:54.139 --> 00:07:57.120
experience, worked at the EPA for 40 years, even

00:07:57.120 --> 00:08:00.819
led this very research office, the ORD, during

00:08:00.819 --> 00:08:03.220
the first Trump administration. OK, so she knows

00:08:03.220 --> 00:08:05.639
it inside out. What did she say? She called these

00:08:05.639 --> 00:08:09.019
actions dismantling a world -class organization

00:08:09.019 --> 00:08:12.720
and she stated very clearly the American people

00:08:12.720 --> 00:08:15.399
are not going to be well served by this. She

00:08:15.399 --> 00:08:18.259
also described the actions as very short -sighted

00:08:18.259 --> 00:08:20.540
and added the way they're going about it is very

00:08:20.540 --> 00:08:23.160
callous and very cruel. Strong words. Did she

00:08:23.160 --> 00:08:25.680
raise other concerns? Yes. She and other experts

00:08:25.680 --> 00:08:28.160
are also warning about this plan to potentially

00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:29.959
move some of the remaining science functions

00:08:29.959 --> 00:08:32.620
into a new department, one that's directly within

00:08:32.620 --> 00:08:35.059
the EPA Administrator's office. What's the worry

00:08:35.059 --> 00:08:37.740
there? The concern is that it threatens to politicize

00:08:37.740 --> 00:08:40.320
the scientific research. By bringing it under

00:08:40.320 --> 00:08:43.340
direct administrative control, you risk compromising

00:08:43.340 --> 00:08:45.700
its independence, its integrity. The science

00:08:45.700 --> 00:08:48.340
might start to follow the policy instead of informing

00:08:48.340 --> 00:08:50.860
it. So it's not just the cuts themselves, but

00:08:50.860 --> 00:08:53.200
how the remaining science might be structured

00:08:53.200 --> 00:08:56.340
and potentially influenced. Okay, so what's the

00:08:56.340 --> 00:08:58.759
administration's side of this? What's their rationale

00:08:58.759 --> 00:09:01.659
for making these drastic changes? Well, Administrator

00:09:01.659 --> 00:09:04.460
Lee Zeldin has been quite public about it. He's

00:09:04.460 --> 00:09:06.279
consistently highlighted the fact that they've

00:09:06.279 --> 00:09:09.919
cut dozens of environmental regulations. He frames

00:09:09.919 --> 00:09:13.000
these actions as making it, quote, cheaper and

00:09:13.000 --> 00:09:15.740
easier for industries to operate. So reducing

00:09:15.740 --> 00:09:18.519
burdens on industry is a key goal. That seems

00:09:18.519 --> 00:09:21.379
to be the main justification. The EPA has also

00:09:21.379 --> 00:09:23.620
claimed significant financial savings from all

00:09:23.620 --> 00:09:27.360
this. They're saying they've saved $748 .8 million

00:09:27.360 --> 00:09:30.259
through what they call organizational improvements

00:09:30.259 --> 00:09:32.860
in these staff reductions. Administrator Zeldin

00:09:32.860 --> 00:09:35.080
has publicly emphasized a commitment to being

00:09:35.080 --> 00:09:37.200
responsible stewards of your hard -earned tax

00:09:37.200 --> 00:09:40.139
dollars. Right. So framing it as fiscal prudence,

00:09:40.320 --> 00:09:43.179
efficiency, helping the economy by cutting red

00:09:43.179 --> 00:09:45.580
tape, how are industry groups and maybe conservative

00:09:45.580 --> 00:09:47.519
think tanks reacting? Are they backing these

00:09:47.519 --> 00:09:49.320
moves? Well, there's definitely significant and

00:09:49.320 --> 00:09:52.299
support from those corners. Chris John, he's

00:09:52.299 --> 00:09:53.919
president of the American Chemistry Council,

00:09:54.059 --> 00:09:56.440
that's a major chemical industry lobbying group.

00:09:57.000 --> 00:10:00.960
He stated his organization, quote, supports EPA

00:10:00.960 --> 00:10:03.840
evaluating its resources to ensure American taxpayer

00:10:03.840 --> 00:10:06.240
dollars are being used efficiently and effectively.

00:10:06.879 --> 00:10:09.879
That aligns pretty neatly with the longstanding

00:10:09.879 --> 00:10:13.340
industry desire for, well, less stringent regulation.

00:10:13.879 --> 00:10:15.419
Makes sense from their perspective. What about

00:10:15.419 --> 00:10:17.580
think tanks? Conservative research organizations

00:10:17.580 --> 00:10:20.460
have also been very vocal. The Heritage Foundation,

00:10:20.539 --> 00:10:23.320
for example, in their Project 2025 blueprint,

00:10:23.480 --> 00:10:27.000
which is this huge detailed plan for how a new

00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:29.080
administration could overhaul the entire federal

00:10:29.080 --> 00:10:31.600
government. They had specifically criticized

00:10:31.600 --> 00:10:33.899
the EPA science office. What did they say was

00:10:33.899 --> 00:10:36.039
wrong with it? They accused the office of being,

00:10:36.039 --> 00:10:38.139
and I'm quoting here, bloated, unaccountable,

00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:40.940
closed, outcome driven, hostile to public and

00:10:40.940 --> 00:10:43.700
legislative input and inclined to pursue political

00:10:43.700 --> 00:10:47.019
rather than purely scientific goals. So a fundamental

00:10:47.019 --> 00:10:49.320
disagreement with how that office operated before.

00:10:49.679 --> 00:10:51.399
That's quite an indictment. Were there other

00:10:51.399 --> 00:10:53.860
groups calling for these kinds of cuts, maybe

00:10:53.860 --> 00:10:56.360
targeting specific programs? Yes, definitely.

00:10:56.860 --> 00:10:58.940
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, another

00:10:58.940 --> 00:11:01.740
conservative research organization, specifically

00:11:01.740 --> 00:11:05.340
called for getting rid of or completely overhauling

00:11:05.340 --> 00:11:07.860
the integrated risk information system that's

00:11:07.860 --> 00:11:11.340
known as IRIS. And what does IRIS do? It's a

00:11:11.340 --> 00:11:13.379
really crucial program that evaluates the toxicity

00:11:13.379 --> 00:11:16.399
of chemicals. James Brokul, who used to be with

00:11:16.399 --> 00:11:19.059
CEI and is now with the America First Policy

00:11:19.059 --> 00:11:21.580
Institute, a group closely aligned with the Trump

00:11:21.580 --> 00:11:24.620
administration, he argued that these IRIS evaluations

00:11:24.620 --> 00:11:27.320
often rely on worst -case hazard assumptions

00:11:27.320 --> 00:11:30.899
that fail to consider real -world exposure scenarios.

00:11:31.210 --> 00:11:33.690
So the argument is that the evaluations are too

00:11:33.690 --> 00:11:36.210
strict, not realistic enough? Essentially, yes.

00:11:36.610 --> 00:11:38.950
It suggests a desire for evaluations that might

00:11:38.950 --> 00:11:41.549
be seen as less burdensome to industries that

00:11:41.549 --> 00:11:43.710
produce or use those chemicals. It fits right

00:11:43.710 --> 00:11:45.730
into that broader deregulatory agenda we've been

00:11:45.730 --> 00:11:48.370
talking about. OK. And how is this all communicated

00:11:48.370 --> 00:11:50.950
internally? How did the staff find out their

00:11:50.950 --> 00:11:52.950
research arm was being eliminated? Well, the

00:11:52.950 --> 00:11:54.990
confirmation actually came through an email sent

00:11:54.990 --> 00:11:57.629
out on a Friday evening. It was from Maureen

00:11:57.629 --> 00:11:59.389
Guinn, the acting head of the office. Friday

00:11:59.389 --> 00:12:03.059
evening. That's rough timing. Yeah. Her message

00:12:03.059 --> 00:12:05.860
acknowledged the, quote, uncertainty and concern

00:12:05.860 --> 00:12:08.940
among the staff. She urged them to remember to

00:12:08.940 --> 00:12:11.059
take care of yourselves. And she announced an

00:12:11.059 --> 00:12:13.720
upcoming town hall meeting for staff to discuss

00:12:13.720 --> 00:12:16.639
these sweeping changes. It just highlights the

00:12:16.639 --> 00:12:19.279
significant human impact, the emotional toll

00:12:19.279 --> 00:12:21.720
these decisions are taking on the people involved.

00:12:21.950 --> 00:12:24.710
Absolutely. An incredibly difficult time for

00:12:24.710 --> 00:12:28.649
those scientists and employees. Wow. Okay, this

00:12:28.649 --> 00:12:31.629
leads us almost directly to another major policy

00:12:31.629 --> 00:12:34.029
shift, doesn't it? One that could have even broader

00:12:34.029 --> 00:12:36.429
implications for how the country deals with climate

00:12:36.429 --> 00:12:38.950
change. Yes, absolutely. Let's pivot to that

00:12:38.950 --> 00:12:41.960
now. The really high stakes battle over climate

00:12:41.960 --> 00:12:44.600
regulation, specifically focusing on the future

00:12:44.600 --> 00:12:46.679
of what's known as the endangerment finding.

00:12:47.000 --> 00:12:48.639
Right, the endangerment finding. That sounds

00:12:48.639 --> 00:12:50.639
like a technical legal term, but my understanding

00:12:50.639 --> 00:12:53.179
is its implications are massive. What would it

00:12:53.179 --> 00:12:55.299
actually mean if it were repealed? You're right.

00:12:55.299 --> 00:12:57.720
The implications would be huge, incredibly far

00:12:57.720 --> 00:13:00.919
reaching. If this proposal from the EPA announced

00:13:00.919 --> 00:13:04.879
just recently, Tuesday, July 29th, 2025, if it's

00:13:04.879 --> 00:13:07.679
finalized, it would effectively wipe out all

00:13:07.679 --> 00:13:10.639
EPA regulations on greenhouse gases from cars.

00:13:11.080 --> 00:13:14.039
Those rules exist because of this finding. Just

00:13:14.039 --> 00:13:16.080
cars, or does it go further? Oh, it goes much

00:13:16.080 --> 00:13:18.779
further. It would also seriously undermine the

00:13:18.779 --> 00:13:20.820
existing rules that limit emissions from power

00:13:20.820 --> 00:13:23.360
plants and the rules controlling methane release

00:13:23.360 --> 00:13:25.799
from oil and gas operations. So it basically

00:13:25.799 --> 00:13:28.940
dismantles the EPA's main tool for regulating

00:13:28.940 --> 00:13:31.539
climate pollution. Exactly it. It gets rid of

00:13:31.539 --> 00:13:34.019
the core legal authority the EPA has used for

00:13:34.019 --> 00:13:36.480
over a decade to regulate the pollutants warming

00:13:36.480 --> 00:13:38.759
the planet. And Administrator Zeldin himself

00:13:38.759 --> 00:13:41.639
called this, what was it? the largest deregulatory

00:13:41.639 --> 00:13:43.539
action in the history of the United States. He

00:13:43.539 --> 00:13:46.279
did. He stated, we do not have that power on

00:13:46.279 --> 00:13:49.039
our own to decide as an agency that we're going

00:13:49.039 --> 00:13:51.860
to combat global climate change because we give

00:13:51.860 --> 00:13:54.720
ourselves that power. He framed it as reining

00:13:54.720 --> 00:13:57.100
in agency overreach while still claiming his

00:13:57.100 --> 00:13:59.299
aim is to balance economic growth with environmental

00:13:59.299 --> 00:14:01.820
protection and committing to clean air and water.

00:14:01.960 --> 00:14:04.639
So from the administration's view, it's about.

00:14:04.879 --> 00:14:07.779
limiting agency power, prioritizing the economy.

00:14:07.919 --> 00:14:09.960
And that really cuts to the heart of this whole

00:14:09.960 --> 00:14:13.259
debate because that 2009 endangerment finding

00:14:13.259 --> 00:14:16.019
wasn't just some arbitrary decision. It was a

00:14:16.019 --> 00:14:19.179
formal conclusion by the EPA based on science.

00:14:19.279 --> 00:14:21.500
What did it conclude exactly? It determined,

00:14:21.980 --> 00:14:24.740
scientifically and legally, that greenhouse gases

00:14:24.740 --> 00:14:28.799
CO2 being the main one pose a real threat to

00:14:28.799 --> 00:14:32.049
public health and welfare. And that conclusion

00:14:32.049 --> 00:14:34.750
was absolutely crucial. Why was it so critical?

00:14:35.169 --> 00:14:37.370
Because it established the legal basis for the

00:14:37.370 --> 00:14:40.549
EPA to regulate those gases as air pollutants

00:14:40.549 --> 00:14:43.409
under the Clean Air Act. The new proposal directly

00:14:43.409 --> 00:14:45.570
challenges that. It essentially argues the Clean

00:14:45.570 --> 00:14:48.240
Air Act... doesn't give the EPA that specific

00:14:48.240 --> 00:14:50.759
power to regulate greenhouse gases for climate

00:14:50.759 --> 00:14:52.659
purposes. Wow. OK, that sounds like a direct

00:14:52.659 --> 00:14:54.440
challenge, not just to the regulation, but to

00:14:54.440 --> 00:14:56.480
the underlying science and the legal framework

00:14:56.480 --> 00:14:58.840
itself. What are the critics saying? People who

00:14:58.840 --> 00:15:01.059
disagree with this repeal? Well, Zealand Hoover,

00:15:01.200 --> 00:15:03.120
who is a senior adviser at the EPA under President

00:15:03.120 --> 00:15:05.860
Biden, didn't mince words. He called the move

00:15:05.860 --> 00:15:08.200
not just an attack on science, but on common

00:15:08.200 --> 00:15:11.879
sense. Common sense? How so? He pointed directly

00:15:11.879 --> 00:15:14.200
to the National Climate Assessment. That's this

00:15:14.200 --> 00:15:17.559
massive comprehensive report over 2 ,000 pages

00:15:17.559 --> 00:15:20.179
detailing all the evidence of climate change

00:15:20.179 --> 00:15:23.299
harms happening right here in the U .S. Hoover

00:15:23.299 --> 00:15:26.230
urged people to think about the millions of Americans

00:15:26.230 --> 00:15:28.669
who have lost their homes and livelihoods to

00:15:28.669 --> 00:15:31.370
extreme fires, floods, and storms that are only

00:15:31.370 --> 00:15:34.210
getting worse. He's making that direct link between

00:15:34.210 --> 00:15:36.950
the science, the finding, and the real world

00:15:36.950 --> 00:15:39.250
suffering people are experiencing. That's a powerful

00:15:39.250 --> 00:15:41.889
connection, linking the policy directly to people's

00:15:41.889 --> 00:15:44.029
lived experiences, the devastation from these

00:15:44.029 --> 00:15:46.690
extreme weather events. What about the industries

00:15:46.690 --> 00:15:49.610
most affected? Like automakers, what's their

00:15:49.610 --> 00:15:51.490
take? The Alliance for Automotive Innovation,

00:15:51.710 --> 00:15:53.429
their big trade group representing most U .S.

00:15:53.549 --> 00:15:54.870
automakers, they said they're still studying

00:15:54.870 --> 00:15:57.590
the proposal. But their president, John Bezella,

00:15:57.830 --> 00:16:00.029
indicated they broadly support changing the policy.

00:16:00.250 --> 00:16:02.809
Why? What's their reasoning? He argued that the

00:16:02.809 --> 00:16:05.190
vehicle emissions rules finalized under the previous

00:16:05.190 --> 00:16:07.769
administration simply aren't achievable given

00:16:07.769 --> 00:16:10.409
today's market conditions and technology. He

00:16:10.409 --> 00:16:12.610
thinks the rules need to be revised to reflect

00:16:12.610 --> 00:16:15.029
reality, keep the industry competitive, allow

00:16:15.029 --> 00:16:17.629
for consumer choice, but still aim for lower

00:16:17.629 --> 00:16:21.549
emissions overall. So for them, it's about recalibrating

00:16:21.549 --> 00:16:25.169
regulations they see as too strict, too costly

00:16:25.169 --> 00:16:27.779
right now. Okay, that definitely aligns with

00:16:27.779 --> 00:16:29.919
the broader economic arguments we heard earlier

00:16:29.919 --> 00:16:32.980
about regulatory burdens. What are the conservative

00:16:32.980 --> 00:16:36.120
think tanks saying specifically about this endangerment

00:16:36.120 --> 00:16:38.740
finding? The endangerment finding has been a

00:16:38.740 --> 00:16:41.220
major target for many conservatives and libertarians

00:16:41.220 --> 00:16:44.139
for years. They see these climate regulations

00:16:44.139 --> 00:16:46.500
as incredibly expensive and a classic example

00:16:46.500 --> 00:16:49.120
of federal overreach. Right. Diana Furchgott

00:16:49.120 --> 00:16:51.360
Roth over at the Heritage Foundation Center for

00:16:51.360 --> 00:16:53.779
Energy, Climate and the Environment called it

00:16:53.779 --> 00:16:56.840
a very expensive regulation. She argued it leads

00:16:56.840 --> 00:16:59.500
to rules that raise the cost of energy and raise

00:16:59.500 --> 00:17:01.980
the cost of transportation and that these costs

00:17:01.980 --> 00:17:04.720
disproportionately burden the poor, burden farmers

00:17:04.720 --> 00:17:07.400
and burden small businesses. So focusing on the

00:17:07.400 --> 00:17:10.000
economic costs, particularly for certain groups.

00:17:10.599 --> 00:17:12.859
Anyone else? Yeah, Myron Ebel, he's chairman

00:17:12.859 --> 00:17:15.140
of the American Lands Council and was actually

00:17:15.140 --> 00:17:17.500
on the EPA transition team earlier. He went even

00:17:17.500 --> 00:17:20.400
further. He said, repealing this finding is crucial

00:17:20.400 --> 00:17:22.779
for cementing the current administration's energy

00:17:22.779 --> 00:17:26.329
legacy. Why? because it makes it much harder

00:17:26.329 --> 00:17:29.289
for a future Democratic administration or a Green

00:17:29.289 --> 00:17:32.549
Republican president to undo these deregulatory

00:17:32.549 --> 00:17:35.430
changes. Ah, so it's strategic. It's not just

00:17:35.430 --> 00:17:37.869
about the present, but about locking in a policy

00:17:37.869 --> 00:17:39.670
direction for the long term, making it harder

00:17:39.670 --> 00:17:42.289
to reverse course later. Exactly. It's about

00:17:42.289 --> 00:17:45.730
limiting future options for climate action through

00:17:45.730 --> 00:17:47.859
this particular legal avenue. This brings up

00:17:47.859 --> 00:17:50.339
that whole cost -benefit debate again. We've

00:17:50.339 --> 00:17:52.599
heard these regulations cost trillions, but then

00:17:52.599 --> 00:17:54.380
others say the benefits are worth trillions.

00:17:54.480 --> 00:17:56.500
Can you unpack that a bit? How can the numbers

00:17:56.500 --> 00:17:58.900
be so different? It really comes down to what

00:17:58.900 --> 00:18:02.259
you count. The EPA under Administrator Zeldin

00:18:02.259 --> 00:18:04.880
has put out figures suggesting vehicle regulations

00:18:04.880 --> 00:18:07.720
tied to the finding cost over a trillion dollars.

00:18:08.059 --> 00:18:10.579
A trillion dollars. That's a huge number. It

00:18:10.579 --> 00:18:13.900
is. But critics jump in immediately and say,

00:18:14.059 --> 00:18:16.619
That estimate is fundamentally flawed because

00:18:16.619 --> 00:18:19.539
it completely ignores the benefits of avoiding

00:18:19.539 --> 00:18:21.579
those emissions. What kind of benefits are they

00:18:21.579 --> 00:18:24.079
talking about? Things like fewer premature deaths

00:18:24.079 --> 00:18:26.519
because of cleaner air, fewer hospital visits

00:18:26.519 --> 00:18:29.579
for asthma, heart problems, respiratory illnesses,

00:18:30.279 --> 00:18:33.000
lower health care costs overall. Under the Biden

00:18:33.000 --> 00:18:35.920
administration, the EPA actually estimated that

00:18:35.920 --> 00:18:37.759
these health and environmental benefits would

00:18:37.759 --> 00:18:40.259
outweigh the costs by about a trillion dollars

00:18:40.259 --> 00:18:43.289
through 2055. So it's a massive disagreement

00:18:43.289 --> 00:18:45.890
based on whether you factor in the societal benefits

00:18:45.890 --> 00:18:48.829
of cleaner air and a more stable climate or just

00:18:48.829 --> 00:18:51.049
focus on the direct compliance costs for industry.

00:18:51.349 --> 00:18:53.769
A trillion dollars in costs versus a trillion

00:18:53.769 --> 00:18:55.809
dollars in net benefits. That's a staggering

00:18:55.809 --> 00:18:58.109
difference in perspective. OK, let's talk legal

00:18:58.109 --> 00:19:00.589
ground. This 2009 finding didn't just happen

00:19:00.589 --> 00:19:02.930
in a vacuum, right? There is a Supreme Court

00:19:02.930 --> 00:19:05.769
case involved. Absolutely. That's critical context.

00:19:06.170 --> 00:19:08.990
Back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark

00:19:08.990 --> 00:19:13.190
case called Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case,

00:19:13.329 --> 00:19:16.089
the court explicitly said the EPA did have the

00:19:16.089 --> 00:19:18.210
authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate

00:19:18.210 --> 00:19:20.789
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. So

00:19:20.789 --> 00:19:22.509
the court already said they could do it. Yes.

00:19:22.720 --> 00:19:25.700
That ruling directly paved the way for the 2009

00:19:25.700 --> 00:19:27.859
endangerment finding and all the carbon limits

00:19:27.859 --> 00:19:30.619
that followed. That's why legal experts are calling

00:19:30.619 --> 00:19:33.099
the current administration's strategy of going

00:19:33.099 --> 00:19:36.380
directly after the finding itself a really risky

00:19:36.380 --> 00:19:39.779
legal move. Richard Reves, he's a law professor

00:19:39.779 --> 00:19:42.440
at NYU, described it as trying to get the holy

00:19:42.440 --> 00:19:44.660
grail, getting rid of the whole climate regulation

00:19:44.660 --> 00:19:46.880
framework in one fell swoop instead of chipping

00:19:46.880 --> 00:19:49.859
away at individual rules. But... He warned, if

00:19:49.859 --> 00:19:52.240
you lose, you end up empty handed. It's an all

00:19:52.240 --> 00:19:54.819
or nothing legal gamble. A high stakes bet. But

00:19:54.819 --> 00:19:56.519
the Supreme Court looks very different now than

00:19:56.519 --> 00:19:58.740
it did in 2007. Is that part of the calculation

00:19:58.740 --> 00:20:01.640
here? Oh, absolutely. That's almost certainly

00:20:01.640 --> 00:20:05.440
a huge factor in the strategy. Kenny Stein from

00:20:05.440 --> 00:20:07.880
the Institute for Energy Research, that's a conservative

00:20:07.880 --> 00:20:10.720
group. He argued that the original Massachusetts

00:20:10.720 --> 00:20:14.319
VEPA ruling was based on shaky legal argument

00:20:14.319 --> 00:20:16.779
anyway. And he believes it's been undermined

00:20:16.779 --> 00:20:18.880
by more recent Supreme Court decisions. Like

00:20:18.880 --> 00:20:21.980
which ones? He pointed to a 2022 ruling that

00:20:21.980 --> 00:20:24.799
emphasized agencies need explicit permission

00:20:24.799 --> 00:20:27.960
from Congress for major new powers, especially

00:20:27.960 --> 00:20:31.160
ones with big economic consequences like regulating

00:20:31.160 --> 00:20:34.119
greenhouse gases. Stein thinks that given the

00:20:34.119 --> 00:20:35.759
massive change in the complexion of the Supreme

00:20:35.759 --> 00:20:38.220
Court, the original Massachusetts decision would

00:20:38.220 --> 00:20:41.000
likely be overruled pretty comprehensively if

00:20:41.000 --> 00:20:43.640
a similar case reached the court today. So they're

00:20:43.640 --> 00:20:46.200
banking on this current court being much more

00:20:46.200 --> 00:20:48.640
receptive to their argument that the EPA overstepped

00:20:48.640 --> 00:20:50.500
its authority. That seems to be the calculation,

00:20:50.720 --> 00:20:52.980
yes. A belief that the legal ground has shifted

00:20:52.980 --> 00:20:55.619
significantly in their favor. Okay, so what happens

00:20:55.619 --> 00:20:58.700
next with this proposal? Is it a done deal? Not

00:20:58.700 --> 00:21:02.420
yet. The EPA's proposal now goes into a mandatory

00:21:02.420 --> 00:21:05.720
45 -day public comment period. Anyone can submit

00:21:05.720 --> 00:21:08.059
comments, individuals, organizations, companies.

00:21:08.880 --> 00:21:11.519
After that period closes, the EPA is legally

00:21:11.519 --> 00:21:13.779
required to review and respond to those comments

00:21:13.779 --> 00:21:16.160
before they can issue a final rule. And has the

00:21:16.160 --> 00:21:19.180
administrator encouraged public input? Yes, Administrator

00:21:19.180 --> 00:21:21.500
Zeldin explicitly invited public comments on

00:21:21.500 --> 00:21:23.579
rescinding both the endangerment finding itself

00:21:23.579 --> 00:21:25.940
and all the related greenhouse gas rules for

00:21:25.940 --> 00:21:28.420
vehicles. They're clearly looking for public

00:21:28.420 --> 00:21:30.299
support to bolster their case for this change.

00:21:30.539 --> 00:21:32.960
OK, so let's game this out. What happens if this

00:21:32.960 --> 00:21:35.079
repeal actually goes through, if it survives

00:21:35.079 --> 00:21:37.220
the comment period and potential court challenges?

00:21:37.799 --> 00:21:40.420
What are the ripple effects, say, for electric

00:21:40.420 --> 00:21:44.059
vehicles or just future climate policy? The potential

00:21:44.059 --> 00:21:46.200
consequences are pretty significant. Richard

00:21:46.200 --> 00:21:48.900
Rivas, the NYU law professor, anticipates we'd

00:21:48.900 --> 00:21:51.019
see a marked slowdown in investment in electric

00:21:51.019 --> 00:21:53.579
vehicle technology. Maybe not overnight, but

00:21:53.579 --> 00:21:56.259
if that primary regulatory pressure pushing automakers

00:21:56.259 --> 00:21:58.900
towards EVs is removed or weakened, the pace

00:21:58.900 --> 00:22:00.880
of innovation and investment could definitely

00:22:00.880 --> 00:22:04.039
slow. Less incentive to invest in EVs. What about

00:22:04.039 --> 00:22:06.640
legal challenges? Are environmental groups going

00:22:06.640 --> 00:22:08.980
to fight this? Oh, absolutely. David Donaker,

00:22:09.160 --> 00:22:11.500
a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense

00:22:11.500 --> 00:22:14.640
Council in RDC, has already vowed they will challenge

00:22:14.640 --> 00:22:17.559
the repeal. They plan to submit extensive comments,

00:22:17.819 --> 00:22:20.099
and if the rule is finalized, they intend to

00:22:20.099 --> 00:22:23.019
take the EPA to court. On what grounds? Donaker

00:22:23.019 --> 00:22:26.400
argues the Clean Air Act unambiguously does include

00:22:26.400 --> 00:22:28.480
greenhouse gases as air pollutants that harm

00:22:28.480 --> 00:22:31.420
public health. He insists the law limits regulation

00:22:31.420 --> 00:22:34.079
to science and health issues, not broad economic

00:22:34.079 --> 00:22:37.160
policy decisions. He predicts pretty firmly that

00:22:37.160 --> 00:22:40.079
the EPA will ultimately lose in court. But even

00:22:40.079 --> 00:22:41.740
if they eventually lose in court, could there

00:22:41.740 --> 00:22:44.019
be damage done in the meantime while the legal

00:22:44.019 --> 00:22:46.180
fight plays out? That's a really critical point

00:22:46.180 --> 00:22:49.220
Donnager raises. He warns about significant long

00:22:49.220 --> 00:22:51.859
term impacts, even if the repeal doesn't ultimately

00:22:51.859 --> 00:22:55.059
stand up legally. The whole process, proposing

00:22:55.059 --> 00:22:58.279
it, fighting it in court could take years. And

00:22:58.279 --> 00:23:00.680
during that time of regulatory uncertainty, he

00:23:00.680 --> 00:23:02.619
fears it could put another generation of dirty

00:23:02.619 --> 00:23:05.140
cars on the road because automakers might delay

00:23:05.140 --> 00:23:08.339
shifting to cleaner vehicles. So years of potentially

00:23:08.339 --> 00:23:11.319
higher emissions while the courts decide. Exactly.

00:23:11.599 --> 00:23:14.940
And if, against the odds, the repeal does survive

00:23:14.940 --> 00:23:18.119
the court challenges, then future administrations

00:23:18.119 --> 00:23:20.480
would effectively be blocked from using the Clean

00:23:20.480 --> 00:23:23.779
Air Act, arguably the most powerful existing

00:23:23.779 --> 00:23:26.039
environmental law to tackle climate change. That

00:23:26.039 --> 00:23:28.740
tool would be gone. That's huge. Doniger summed

00:23:28.740 --> 00:23:31.039
it up powerfully. He said this move essentially

00:23:31.039 --> 00:23:33.730
asks the American people who are living through

00:23:33.730 --> 00:23:35.910
wildfires, floods, hurricanes, heat dumps, and

00:23:35.910 --> 00:23:38.309
so on, not to believe what they're going through,

00:23:38.549 --> 00:23:41.069
not to believe their own eyes. He thinks it will

00:23:41.069 --> 00:23:44.390
seem mind -bogglingly false and out of touch,

00:23:44.650 --> 00:23:46.490
given what people are experiencing with extreme

00:23:46.490 --> 00:23:49.829
weather. Wow. That's a sobering perspective.

00:23:50.220 --> 00:23:53.299
A high stakes legal and policy fight with incredibly

00:23:53.299 --> 00:23:56.099
direct real world consequences for the environment,

00:23:56.259 --> 00:23:58.480
for the climate, for all of us. And this ties

00:23:58.480 --> 00:24:00.180
directly into our next big topic, doesn't it?

00:24:00.220 --> 00:24:02.180
Because who responds when these climate related

00:24:02.180 --> 00:24:05.480
disasters strike? That brings us to FEMA, the

00:24:05.480 --> 00:24:08.420
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Right. And

00:24:08.420 --> 00:24:10.559
the landscape there is also shifting dramatically,

00:24:10.740 --> 00:24:13.279
especially as we head into what meteorologists

00:24:13.279 --> 00:24:15.720
are warning could be a very active hurricane

00:24:15.720 --> 00:24:18.400
season. What's the forecast looking like? Well,

00:24:18.480 --> 00:24:20.539
the experts are predicting an above normal season.

00:24:21.180 --> 00:24:23.819
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

00:24:24.039 --> 00:24:26.619
NOAA, they're forecasting somewhere between 13

00:24:26.619 --> 00:24:30.359
to 19 named storms in the Atlantic. And importantly,

00:24:30.500 --> 00:24:32.819
they expect three to five of those could become

00:24:32.819 --> 00:24:35.380
major hurricanes. Three to five major hurricanes.

00:24:35.680 --> 00:24:38.599
That's significant potential for damage. It is.

00:24:38.839 --> 00:24:40.759
And Laura Grimm, who's the acting head at NOAA,

00:24:40.960 --> 00:24:43.400
made a key point. She highlighted that hurricane

00:24:43.400 --> 00:24:46.500
impacts aren't just coastal anymore. We saw it

00:24:46.500 --> 00:24:49.319
last year with hurricanes Helene and Debbie significant

00:24:49.319 --> 00:24:52.079
inland flooding can reach far beyond the coast

00:24:52.079 --> 00:24:53.900
affecting communities that might not typically

00:24:53.900 --> 00:24:56.640
think of themselves as being in hurricane territory.

00:24:57.079 --> 00:24:59.180
So a potentially severe season with widespread

00:24:59.180 --> 00:25:02.299
risk, but at the same time there's this cloud

00:25:02.299 --> 00:25:05.480
of uncertainty hanging over FEMA's role. What's

00:25:05.480 --> 00:25:08.339
causing that? Yet despite the series forecast,

00:25:08.480 --> 00:25:11.529
there's this palpable uncertainty. because the

00:25:11.529 --> 00:25:14.230
administration is sending very mixed, shifting

00:25:14.230 --> 00:25:16.309
signals about what the federal government's role

00:25:16.309 --> 00:25:19.210
in disaster response should even be. Mixed signals

00:25:19.210 --> 00:25:21.930
how? Well, on one hand, the administration says

00:25:21.930 --> 00:25:24.789
it remains, quote, laser -focused on disaster

00:25:24.789 --> 00:25:26.690
response and protecting the American people.

00:25:27.289 --> 00:25:29.349
But on the other hand, the Secretary of Homeland

00:25:29.349 --> 00:25:32.150
Security, Kristi Noem, has publicly argued that

00:25:32.150 --> 00:25:34.849
FEMA, as it's currently structured, is inefficient.

00:25:35.069 --> 00:25:37.440
Inefficient. What's her vision for it? She argues

00:25:37.440 --> 00:25:39.660
it should take more of a supportive role with

00:25:39.660 --> 00:25:42.319
states taking the clear lead. She actually said

00:25:42.319 --> 00:25:44.539
federal emergency management should be state

00:25:44.539 --> 00:25:47.079
and locally led rather than how it has operated

00:25:47.079 --> 00:25:50.619
for decades. And she even suggested this entire

00:25:50.619 --> 00:25:53.259
agency needs to be eliminated as it exists today

00:25:53.259 --> 00:25:56.539
and remade into a responsive agency. Eliminated

00:25:56.539 --> 00:25:58.779
as it exists today. Wow. That's a fundamental

00:25:58.779 --> 00:26:01.099
challenge to how disaster response has worked

00:26:01.099 --> 00:26:03.460
for decades, especially heading into hurricane

00:26:03.460 --> 00:26:05.359
season. It's a huge philosophical shift being

00:26:05.359 --> 00:26:08.200
proposed. How has this rhetoric, this proposed

00:26:08.200 --> 00:26:10.740
shift, actually played out in recent disasters?

00:26:11.160 --> 00:26:13.559
And how are states reacting on the ground? Well,

00:26:13.900 --> 00:26:16.400
interestingly, the rhetoric from administration

00:26:16.400 --> 00:26:19.599
officials seemed to soften a bit, shifting more

00:26:19.599 --> 00:26:22.480
towards reforming FEMA rather than eliminating

00:26:22.480 --> 00:26:24.720
it entirely after those devastating floods hit

00:26:24.720 --> 00:26:26.960
Texas earlier this month. What happened there?

00:26:27.200 --> 00:26:29.859
Secretary Naum faced a lot of public criticism

00:26:29.859 --> 00:26:32.500
over reports of a botched federal response to

00:26:32.500 --> 00:26:35.000
the Texas floods. The Houston Chronicle's editorial

00:26:35.000 --> 00:26:37.279
board even compared it to the failures during

00:26:37.279 --> 00:26:40.069
Hurricane Katrina. suggesting serious problems

00:26:40.069 --> 00:26:42.829
with federal coordination and aid delivery. That's

00:26:42.829 --> 00:26:45.130
a damning comparison. How bad were the floods?

00:26:45.349 --> 00:26:48.069
They were incredibly severe. At least 120 people

00:26:48.069 --> 00:26:50.690
died. Over 100 were still missing last we heard.

00:26:51.230 --> 00:26:53.190
And the early cost estimates are huge, somewhere

00:26:53.190 --> 00:26:56.829
between $18 billion and $22 billion. That's devastating.

00:26:57.170 --> 00:26:59.190
But the administration defended the response.

00:26:59.450 --> 00:27:02.230
Yes. Despite the widespread criticism, President

00:27:02.230 --> 00:27:04.569
Trump publicly praised Secretary Noem's handling

00:27:04.569 --> 00:27:07.089
of the situation and dismissed reports that her

00:27:07.089 --> 00:27:09.329
funding decisions had actually slowed down the

00:27:09.329 --> 00:27:11.549
federal response efforts. So states are getting

00:27:11.549 --> 00:27:14.289
these mixed messages, seeing criticism of federal

00:27:14.289 --> 00:27:16.869
response. They must be feeling pretty uncertain

00:27:16.869 --> 00:27:18.809
about what support they can actually count on.

00:27:18.990 --> 00:27:21.730
How are they preparing? They really are grappling

00:27:21.730 --> 00:27:24.369
with this uncertainty. States across the political

00:27:24.369 --> 00:27:26.769
spectrum, red and blue. Louisiana's governor,

00:27:26.950 --> 00:27:29.829
Jeff Landry, a Republican, was very frank. He

00:27:29.829 --> 00:27:31.630
basically admitted he doesn't know what added

00:27:31.630 --> 00:27:34.029
responsibilities his state might suddenly face

00:27:34.029 --> 00:27:36.170
under a new federal approach. So they're trying

00:27:36.170 --> 00:27:37.970
to figure it out on their own. Some are trying

00:27:37.970 --> 00:27:40.089
to be proactive. A handful of states have set

00:27:40.089 --> 00:27:42.809
up special task forces or commissions to strategize.

00:27:43.170 --> 00:27:45.849
For example, in Georgia, a bipartisan group of

00:27:45.849 --> 00:27:49.109
state lawmakers created a study committee specifically

00:27:49.109 --> 00:27:52.400
focused on disaster mitigation. That shows concern

00:27:52.400 --> 00:27:55.539
across party lines. Interesting. Any other examples?

00:27:56.160 --> 00:27:58.400
Kentucky State Legislature actually passed a

00:27:58.400 --> 00:28:01.779
law creating a task force just to prepare for

00:28:01.779 --> 00:28:03.779
potential changes in FEMA funding and structure.

00:28:04.619 --> 00:28:06.400
The Republican state senator who co -sponsored

00:28:06.400 --> 00:28:08.900
that bill, Matthew Deneen, stressed that the

00:28:08.900 --> 00:28:12.400
state needs to be agile, to be responsive, and

00:28:12.400 --> 00:28:15.220
to be prepared given how unpredictable the federal

00:28:15.220 --> 00:28:17.700
situation feels right now. So states are definitely

00:28:17.700 --> 00:28:20.480
trying to brace themselves. What is FEMA itself

00:28:20.480 --> 00:28:22.819
saying? What's the official line from the agency

00:28:22.819 --> 00:28:25.960
about their role this season? Well, a spokesperson

00:28:25.960 --> 00:28:29.599
for FEMA pushed back on the idea of uncertainty.

00:28:30.200 --> 00:28:32.740
They stated there is no uncertainty about what

00:28:32.740 --> 00:28:35.339
FEMA will be doing this hurricane season. And

00:28:35.339 --> 00:28:38.690
they added... The old processes are being replaced

00:28:38.690 --> 00:28:41.329
because they failed Americans in real emergencies

00:28:41.329 --> 00:28:44.150
for decades. So their line is that these changes

00:28:44.150 --> 00:28:46.650
aren't weakening response, they're actually improving

00:28:46.650 --> 00:28:49.089
it by fixing past failures. That seems to be

00:28:49.089 --> 00:28:51.869
the official position. They're framing the changes

00:28:51.869 --> 00:28:54.369
as necessary improvements, despite all the external

00:28:54.369 --> 00:28:56.750
concerns about reduced federal capacity and support.

00:28:56.960 --> 00:28:59.259
But these kinds of fundamental changes, shifting

00:28:59.259 --> 00:29:01.779
responsibility to states, that must have huge

00:29:01.779 --> 00:29:03.940
financial implications, right? Especially for

00:29:03.940 --> 00:29:06.140
states whose budgets are already stretched thin.

00:29:06.319 --> 00:29:08.220
That's a critical point, and it's where you really

00:29:08.220 --> 00:29:10.259
see the connections between these different policy

00:29:10.259 --> 00:29:13.359
shifts. States are already facing enormous budget

00:29:13.359 --> 00:29:15.720
pressures. Federal lawmakers have been cutting

00:29:15.720 --> 00:29:17.839
spending across the board, health care, infrastructure,

00:29:18.279 --> 00:29:21.500
and yes, natural disasters. And there was a specific

00:29:21.500 --> 00:29:25.519
FEMA program cut recently that hit disaster preparedness

00:29:25.519 --> 00:29:28.579
funding hard wasn't there yes a major one back

00:29:28.579 --> 00:29:31.559
in april fema suspended its building resilient

00:29:31.559 --> 00:29:33.500
infrastructure and communities program known

00:29:33.500 --> 00:29:37.000
as brick that single cut eliminated eight hundred

00:29:37.000 --> 00:29:39.700
and eighty two million dollars in federal funding

00:29:39.700 --> 00:29:41.940
eight hundred and eighty two million dollars

00:29:42.329 --> 00:29:45.430
What did the BRIC program actually do? It was

00:29:45.430 --> 00:29:47.829
specifically designed to help communities reduce

00:29:47.829 --> 00:29:50.490
their long -term hazard risks before a disaster

00:29:50.490 --> 00:29:53.589
strikes. It gave economic support to states so

00:29:53.589 --> 00:29:55.109
they could invest in things like strengthening

00:29:55.109 --> 00:29:57.250
the infrastructure, improving building codes,

00:29:57.690 --> 00:29:59.730
flood mitigation projects, proactive measures.

00:30:00.109 --> 00:30:02.230
Losing it removes a crucial source of funding

00:30:02.230 --> 00:30:04.759
for prevention. That sounds exactly like the

00:30:04.759 --> 00:30:06.740
kind of program needed to build resilience and

00:30:06.740 --> 00:30:08.819
probably save money in the long run by avoiding

00:30:08.819 --> 00:30:11.160
future damage. How did states react to losing

00:30:11.160 --> 00:30:13.259
BRIC? The reaction was pretty strong. Twenty

00:30:13.259 --> 00:30:15.680
states actually sued FEMA over it. They alleged

00:30:15.680 --> 00:30:17.920
the agency unlawfully terminated grants that

00:30:17.920 --> 00:30:19.720
Congress had already approved. What was their

00:30:19.720 --> 00:30:21.980
argument in the lawsuit? They emphasized that

00:30:21.980 --> 00:30:24.480
many important projects, projects that had been

00:30:24.480 --> 00:30:27.180
in development for years designed specifically

00:30:27.180 --> 00:30:30.299
to prevent devastating damage, are now just left

00:30:30.299 --> 00:30:33.839
unfinished or paused indefinitely, leaving communities

00:30:33.839 --> 00:30:36.960
more vulnerable. How did FEMA defend the cut?

00:30:37.500 --> 00:30:39.539
An agency spokesperson defended the decision

00:30:39.539 --> 00:30:42.980
by calling BRIC a wasteful and ineffective FEMA

00:30:42.980 --> 00:30:46.089
program. And they added a comment noting that

00:30:46.089 --> 00:30:48.009
two -thirds of the counties that had received

00:30:48.009 --> 00:30:50.369
grants under the program had voted for Trump

00:30:50.369 --> 00:30:53.630
in 2024. Wait, they brought voting patterns into

00:30:53.630 --> 00:30:56.190
it. They did. Which, you know, introduced a pretty

00:30:56.190 --> 00:30:58.430
clear political dimension into the justification

00:30:58.430 --> 00:31:00.869
for suspending a disaster resilience program.

00:31:01.410 --> 00:31:03.690
It suggested that political alignment might have

00:31:03.690 --> 00:31:05.410
factored into how the program's effectiveness

00:31:05.410 --> 00:31:07.670
was judged. That definitely adds another layer.

00:31:07.930 --> 00:31:10.109
Okay, so states are losing proactive funding

00:31:10.109 --> 00:31:13.420
like brick. What's the broader financial impact,

00:31:13.460 --> 00:31:15.619
especially when you combine these cuts with other

00:31:15.619 --> 00:31:18.839
federal changes happening? Colin Ford, who directs

00:31:18.839 --> 00:31:21.200
the fiscal risk project at the Pew Charitable

00:31:21.200 --> 00:31:24.440
Trusts, put it very clearly. He said these moves

00:31:24.440 --> 00:31:26.319
are compounding the pressures already hitting

00:31:26.319 --> 00:31:28.759
state budgets. States were already struggling

00:31:28.759 --> 00:31:31.279
with the rising costs of disasters and traditional

00:31:31.279 --> 00:31:33.240
budgeting methods were beginning to fall short

00:31:33.240 --> 00:31:37.440
even before these new federal cuts. So if states

00:31:37.440 --> 00:31:40.480
now have to spend more on disaster prep themselves?

00:31:40.859 --> 00:31:43.240
It inevitably comes at the cost of trade -offs

00:31:43.240 --> 00:31:46.740
in other policy areas, as Ford warned. If more

00:31:46.740 --> 00:31:48.859
state money has to go to disaster readiness or

00:31:48.859 --> 00:31:51.680
recovery, it might mean less money for schools,

00:31:52.160 --> 00:31:54.720
roads, public safety, other essential services.

00:31:55.240 --> 00:31:57.960
It forces really difficult choices, a kind of

00:31:57.960 --> 00:32:00.480
zero -sum game for state budgets. And it's not

00:32:00.480 --> 00:32:02.720
just disaster funding cuts creating pressure,

00:32:02.740 --> 00:32:04.559
right? You mentioned health care earlier. How

00:32:04.559 --> 00:32:06.880
does that fit in? Absolutely. It compounds the

00:32:06.880 --> 00:32:08.799
problem significantly. Think about broader federal

00:32:08.799 --> 00:32:11.119
cuts, particularly the Medicaid services. There

00:32:11.119 --> 00:32:13.099
are projections, for instance, that around 16

00:32:13.099 --> 00:32:14.980
million Americans could lose their health insurance

00:32:14.980 --> 00:32:18.299
by 2034 under policies being discussed or implemented.

00:32:18.440 --> 00:32:22.039
16 million. Yeah. And that likely forces states

00:32:22.039 --> 00:32:24.839
to pick up a much bigger share of the rising

00:32:24.839 --> 00:32:28.059
medical costs for their residents. Representative

00:32:28.059 --> 00:32:30.579
Jared Moskovitz. He's a Democrat from Florida,

00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:33.000
used to be the state's emergency management director.

00:32:33.859 --> 00:32:36.000
He painted a really stark picture. What did he

00:32:36.000 --> 00:32:38.940
predict? He grimly predicted that if states lose

00:32:38.940 --> 00:32:42.099
FEMA reimbursement for disasters, on top of the

00:32:42.099 --> 00:32:43.880
hole they just blew in their health care budget

00:32:43.880 --> 00:32:45.920
because of the lack of federal funding, then

00:32:45.920 --> 00:32:48.339
there are states that are just a ticking time

00:32:48.339 --> 00:32:51.940
bomb. It highlights this potential cascade of

00:32:51.940 --> 00:32:54.279
financial crises hitting states from multiple

00:32:54.279 --> 00:32:57.099
directions at once. A ticking time bomb. That's

00:32:57.099 --> 00:32:59.420
a terrifying image, that confluence of pressures.

00:33:00.140 --> 00:33:02.700
So given this potential gap, what are the practical

00:33:02.700 --> 00:33:05.380
solutions? How can states bridge this disaster

00:33:05.380 --> 00:33:08.180
preparedness funding issue if the federal money

00:33:08.180 --> 00:33:10.480
isn't there like it used to be? Well, experts

00:33:10.480 --> 00:33:13.200
like Matthew Sanders, also at Pew, emphasize

00:33:13.200 --> 00:33:15.380
that states absolutely need to increase their

00:33:15.380 --> 00:33:18.160
own spending on long -term risk reduction. Because,

00:33:18.279 --> 00:33:20.700
as he says, it's always cheaper to reduce risk,

00:33:20.900 --> 00:33:23.960
to avoid risk, than it is to recover from a disaster.

00:33:24.539 --> 00:33:26.700
That's just fundamental. Cheaper to prevent than

00:33:26.700 --> 00:33:29.660
repair? Makes sense. But—and this is the huge

00:33:29.660 --> 00:33:32.500
but— He underscored that historically, the federal

00:33:32.500 --> 00:33:34.740
government has been the predominant funder for

00:33:34.740 --> 00:33:37.420
these kinds of proactive, large -scale resilience

00:33:37.420 --> 00:33:40.420
projects. So if there are major federal shortfalls,

00:33:40.440 --> 00:33:43.039
it creates a gap that's going to need to be filled

00:33:43.039 --> 00:33:45.680
from other sources. And states are left scrambling

00:33:45.680 --> 00:33:48.059
to find those sources, often by cutting elsewhere.

00:33:48.579 --> 00:33:51.220
Are we seeing states already trying to adapt,

00:33:51.359 --> 00:33:54.279
trying to find ways to cope with this new reality?

00:33:54.480 --> 00:33:56.660
Yes. Some states are definitely trying to be

00:33:56.660 --> 00:33:59.700
proactive, despite the challenges. For example,

00:34:00.059 --> 00:34:02.980
after Hurricane Helene hit hard last fall, Georgia

00:34:02.980 --> 00:34:05.579
recommended updates to its building codes and

00:34:05.579 --> 00:34:08.400
created a reforestation tax credit, both aimed

00:34:08.400 --> 00:34:11.119
at long -term resilience. That tax credit was

00:34:11.119 --> 00:34:13.780
signed into law back in May. So policy changes

00:34:13.780 --> 00:34:16.579
at the state level, what else? Emergency management

00:34:16.579 --> 00:34:18.639
agencies in places like North Carolina and South

00:34:18.639 --> 00:34:21.539
Carolina are actively exploring more collaborations

00:34:21.539 --> 00:34:23.389
with the private sector. They're also trying

00:34:23.389 --> 00:34:25.309
to build stronger connections with other state

00:34:25.309 --> 00:34:28.030
emergency management groups to share resources,

00:34:28.630 --> 00:34:31.110
expertise, best practices. Trying to pool resources.

00:34:31.429 --> 00:34:34.170
Right. The spokesperson for North Carolina's

00:34:34.170 --> 00:34:37.449
governor, Josh Stein, stated pretty bluntly that

00:34:37.449 --> 00:34:39.989
eliminating FEMA entirely would be a man -made

00:34:39.989 --> 00:34:42.730
disaster. They urged for working together to

00:34:42.730 --> 00:34:46.079
improve the agency, not dismantle it. And interestingly

00:34:46.079 --> 00:34:48.119
in South Dakota, the Republican Lieutenant Governor

00:34:48.119 --> 00:34:50.780
Tony Van Housen is leading a state task force

00:34:50.780 --> 00:34:53.000
specifically created to prepare for potential

00:34:53.000 --> 00:34:56.000
changes at FEMA. He expressed sympathy for federal

00:34:56.000 --> 00:34:58.320
spending issues, but stressed they desperately

00:34:58.320 --> 00:35:00.940
need details on what the cuts actually mean for

00:35:00.940 --> 00:35:03.340
their state's responsibilities. So states are

00:35:03.340 --> 00:35:05.739
trying to adapt, trying to collaborate, trying

00:35:05.739 --> 00:35:08.699
to plan. But they're clearly facing a real uphill

00:35:08.699 --> 00:35:10.960
battle without that consistent federal funding

00:35:10.960 --> 00:35:13.340
and clear guidance. You know, all these discussions,

00:35:13.559 --> 00:35:16.360
the EPA changes, the FEMA uncertainty, the disaster

00:35:16.360 --> 00:35:18.980
response capacity, they all ultimately tie back

00:35:18.980 --> 00:35:21.059
to our fundamental understanding of climate and

00:35:21.059 --> 00:35:23.760
weather itself. Exactly. Which brings us to our

00:35:23.760 --> 00:35:25.860
next section concerning what feels like a retreat

00:35:25.860 --> 00:35:28.599
from climate monitoring itself. Specifically,

00:35:28.820 --> 00:35:31.079
the proposed closure of the iconic Mauna Loa

00:35:31.079 --> 00:35:33.239
Observatory. This sounds really serious, what's

00:35:33.239 --> 00:35:36.159
being proposed. It is quite significant. President

00:35:36.159 --> 00:35:39.460
Trump's proposed budget for 2026 explicitly targets

00:35:39.460 --> 00:35:41.980
the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii for closure.

00:35:42.900 --> 00:35:45.860
But it goes further. It also aims to eliminate

00:35:45.860 --> 00:35:48.320
almost all climate research currently done by

00:35:48.320 --> 00:35:50.739
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

00:35:50.760 --> 00:35:53.309
NOAA. Almost all of NOAA's climate research.

00:35:53.389 --> 00:35:55.789
That's what the proposal indicates. It includes

00:35:55.789 --> 00:35:58.650
defunding many other climate labs and essentially

00:35:58.650 --> 00:36:01.070
dismantling the entire U .S. government's network

00:36:01.070 --> 00:36:04.269
for monitoring greenhouse gases. Mauna Loa. That

00:36:04.269 --> 00:36:06.789
name is so familiar in climate discussions. What

00:36:06.789 --> 00:36:08.869
makes that specific observatory so important?

00:36:09.010 --> 00:36:11.150
Why is it considered such a unique, almost perfect

00:36:11.150 --> 00:36:14.989
spot? Mauna Loa sits way up high, over 11 ,100

00:36:14.989 --> 00:36:17.889
feet above sea level on a Hawaiian volcano. It's

00:36:17.889 --> 00:36:20.460
this stark landscape. black rocks, white clouds,

00:36:20.639 --> 00:36:23.139
blue sky. Its isolation and altitude are key.

00:36:23.440 --> 00:36:25.519
It samples air that's largely undisturbed by

00:36:25.519 --> 00:36:27.659
local pollution or vegetation effects. So it

00:36:27.659 --> 00:36:30.300
gets a really clean air sample. Exactly. It makes

00:36:30.300 --> 00:36:32.420
it one of the absolute best places on the entire

00:36:32.420 --> 00:36:35.340
planet for accurately measuring atmospheric greenhouse

00:36:35.340 --> 00:36:38.119
gases over the long term. It's considered indispensable

00:36:38.119 --> 00:36:40.960
by scientists worldwide because the data is so

00:36:40.960 --> 00:36:44.539
consistent, so pure, and stretches back so far.

00:36:45.019 --> 00:36:46.800
It's like having this perfectly calibrated sensor

00:36:46.800 --> 00:36:49.039
in the cleanest possible global air mass. And

00:36:49.039 --> 00:36:50.760
this is where the famous Keeling curve comes

00:36:50.760 --> 00:36:52.780
from, right? Can you remind us about that graph

00:36:52.780 --> 00:36:55.679
and why it's so iconic? That's right. The Keeling

00:36:55.679 --> 00:36:58.610
curve. Known the world over, originated from

00:36:58.610 --> 00:37:00.769
continuous CO2 readings collected right there

00:37:00.769 --> 00:37:03.670
at Mauna Loa, starting way back in 1958 by Charles

00:37:03.670 --> 00:37:06.510
David Keeling. It's that simple but powerful

00:37:06.510 --> 00:37:08.530
upward swooping line you see everywhere. What

00:37:08.530 --> 00:37:11.630
does it show? It vividly charts the steady, undeniable,

00:37:11.929 --> 00:37:14.190
and frankly accelerating rise of carbon dioxide

00:37:14.190 --> 00:37:16.090
in our atmosphere over the past seven decades.

00:37:16.570 --> 00:37:19.289
And it directly links that rise to nations burning

00:37:19.289 --> 00:37:22.510
ever more oil, gas, and coal. What are the actual

00:37:22.510 --> 00:37:25.409
numbers? When kearing started in 1958, the CO2

00:37:25.409 --> 00:37:28.090
concentration was about 316 parts per million.

00:37:28.389 --> 00:37:32.409
Now, it's over 430 parts per million. Just in

00:37:32.409 --> 00:37:36.789
2024, the average was 424 .61 ppm. That's a huge

00:37:36.789 --> 00:37:39.929
increase. It is. And Lisa Gromlich, an emeritus

00:37:39.929 --> 00:37:42.210
climate scientist, pointed out something profound.

00:37:42.909 --> 00:37:45.130
She said that data from Mauna Loa provided the

00:37:45.130 --> 00:37:48.110
definitive, undeniable proof that humans were

00:37:48.110 --> 00:37:50.309
capable of changing the entire planet's climate.

00:37:50.440 --> 00:37:53.619
It made it so clear that we were moving beyond

00:37:53.619 --> 00:37:56.420
natural variability and that fossil fuel burning

00:37:56.420 --> 00:37:58.300
was causing it. It was basically the smoking

00:37:58.300 --> 00:38:00.500
gun for human -caused climate change. So this

00:38:00.500 --> 00:38:02.940
one remote spot gave us the answer to one of

00:38:02.940 --> 00:38:05.579
the biggest questions of our time. What are scientists

00:38:05.579 --> 00:38:07.900
saying now about the proposal to just shut it

00:38:07.900 --> 00:38:11.440
down and defund all this monitoring? Lisa Gromlich

00:38:11.440 --> 00:38:14.099
called the closure proposal frankly inconceivable.

00:38:14.269 --> 00:38:16.449
She highlighted that while a lot of climate science

00:38:16.449 --> 00:38:19.150
is complex, this iconic healing curve record

00:38:19.150 --> 00:38:21.769
is something that can be grasped by almost anyone.

00:38:21.949 --> 00:38:25.510
It's a clear visual. She asked, why, for relatively

00:38:25.510 --> 00:38:27.769
little cost, would we want to lose that ability?

00:38:27.989 --> 00:38:30.130
Good question. What about former agency heads?

00:38:30.469 --> 00:38:33.610
Rick Spinrad, who led NOAA during the Biden administration,

00:38:34.110 --> 00:38:37.309
used a great analogy. He said consistent climate

00:38:37.309 --> 00:38:39.869
records are like regular doctor checkups for

00:38:39.869 --> 00:38:42.130
the planet. You wouldn't just stop going to the

00:38:42.130 --> 00:38:43.889
doctor if you wanted to stay healthy, right?

00:38:44.269 --> 00:38:46.690
He argued we shouldn't stop monitoring the planet

00:38:46.690 --> 00:38:49.469
if we want to understand and address its changing

00:38:49.469 --> 00:38:52.030
health. That makes sense. But Mauna Loa isn't

00:38:52.030 --> 00:38:54.690
working completely alone, is it? Is it part of

00:38:54.690 --> 00:38:57.289
a bigger network that's also threatened by these

00:38:57.289 --> 00:39:00.150
cuts? Yes, that's a really important point. Mauna

00:39:00.150 --> 00:39:03.250
Loa is a crucial piece, but it's part of a much

00:39:03.250 --> 00:39:06.670
larger, globally significant network run by NOAA.

00:39:06.909 --> 00:39:09.159
What other sites are involved? NOAA operates

00:39:09.159 --> 00:39:12.000
three other key long -term monitoring stations,

00:39:12.320 --> 00:39:14.920
one up in Barrow, Alaska, one in American Samoa

00:39:14.920 --> 00:39:17.559
in the South Pacific, and one right at the geographic

00:39:17.559 --> 00:39:19.980
South Pole in Antarctica. So covering the globe

00:39:19.980 --> 00:39:22.960
from north to south. Exactly. These four stations

00:39:22.960 --> 00:39:25.000
working together are what allow scientists to

00:39:25.000 --> 00:39:27.260
calculate the global average carbon dioxide trend.

00:39:27.579 --> 00:39:29.679
They give us that comprehensive planetary overview.

00:39:30.199 --> 00:39:32.139
The proposed budget wouldn't just close Mauna

00:39:32.139 --> 00:39:34.400
Loa. It would close all four. All four. What

00:39:34.400 --> 00:39:37.000
would that mean? It means the United States would

00:39:37.000 --> 00:39:40.500
lose its unique poll to poll view. of greenhouse

00:39:40.500 --> 00:39:43.920
gases. It's a consistent long -term network that

00:39:43.920 --> 00:39:46.199
other countries simply can't replicate easily

00:39:46.199 --> 00:39:48.920
or quickly. It would create a massive gap in

00:39:48.920 --> 00:39:51.820
our global understanding. A huge data gap. And

00:39:51.820 --> 00:39:54.760
how do they collect samples beyond these main

00:39:54.760 --> 00:39:57.039
stations? I think I heard something about a flask

00:39:57.039 --> 00:40:00.159
network. Yes, NOAA also runs a vital flask network.

00:40:00.340 --> 00:40:03.019
They collect air samples in literal flasks from

00:40:03.019 --> 00:40:05.500
remote locations all around the world, mountains,

00:40:05.960 --> 00:40:07.920
islands, ships. And where do those samples go?

00:40:08.059 --> 00:40:11.159
They get sent back. and meticulously analyzed

00:40:11.159 --> 00:40:13.940
at NOAA's Global Monitoring Lab in Boulder, Colorado.

00:40:14.340 --> 00:40:17.010
And guess what? That central lab in Boulder is

00:40:17.010 --> 00:40:19.090
also targeted by these proposed budget cuts.

00:40:19.429 --> 00:40:21.429
So the whole system is under threat. Are there

00:40:21.429 --> 00:40:23.769
other networks doing this? There are other air

00:40:23.769 --> 00:40:26.130
sampling networks around the world run by different

00:40:26.130 --> 00:40:28.510
countries or institutions. But frankly, none

00:40:28.510 --> 00:40:30.710
have the same comprehensive coverage, the long

00:40:30.710 --> 00:40:33.610
term consistency or the sheer volume and quality

00:40:33.610 --> 00:40:36.090
of data provided by Noah's network. It's really

00:40:36.090 --> 00:40:38.289
a cornerstone of global monitoring, providing

00:40:38.289 --> 00:40:40.809
critical ground truth data that everyone relies

00:40:40.809 --> 00:40:43.610
on. And presumably they're tracking more than

00:40:43.610 --> 00:40:46.829
just CO2 at these sites. What else would we lose?

00:40:47.329 --> 00:40:50.010
That's another crucial point. These observatories

00:40:50.010 --> 00:40:52.550
track a much wider range of atmospheric components

00:40:52.550 --> 00:40:54.889
than just carbon dioxide. They monitor methane,

00:40:55.250 --> 00:40:57.230
which is a much more potent greenhouse gas in

00:40:57.230 --> 00:41:00.510
the short term. They track nitrous oxide, aerosols,

00:41:01.030 --> 00:41:03.250
substances that deplete the ozone layer, soot.

00:41:03.360 --> 00:41:05.239
Particulate pollution a whole suite of things

00:41:05.239 --> 00:41:07.739
right and even subtle changes in solar radiation

00:41:07.739 --> 00:41:10.480
weather patterns wind patterns Collecting all

00:41:10.480 --> 00:41:12.239
this data together is what allows scientists

00:41:12.239 --> 00:41:15.260
to get a truly holistic Nuance picture of our

00:41:15.260 --> 00:41:17.559
atmosphere's health and understand the complex

00:41:17.559 --> 00:41:20.719
factors driving climate change Losing that comprehensive

00:41:20.719 --> 00:41:23.039
view would be a major setback. Okay. So what

00:41:23.039 --> 00:41:25.599
are the real -world? Consequences then if we

00:41:25.599 --> 00:41:27.800
lose all this data from Mauna Loa the whole Noah

00:41:27.800 --> 00:41:30.639
Network What does that mean for us, practically

00:41:30.639 --> 00:41:33.219
speaking, our ability to understand, predict,

00:41:33.480 --> 00:41:36.059
protect ourselves? Rick Spinrad put it starkly.

00:41:36.280 --> 00:41:39.440
He said, without this data, we'd lose large areas

00:41:39.440 --> 00:41:41.559
of observation and make it harder to understand

00:41:41.559 --> 00:41:43.739
where greenhouse gases are coming from and where

00:41:43.739 --> 00:41:46.280
they're going. Just fundamentally harder to track

00:41:46.280 --> 00:41:48.760
the problem. What does that mean for prediction?

00:41:49.230 --> 00:41:51.949
It makes it exponentially harder to accurately

00:41:51.949 --> 00:41:55.150
assess long -term climate trends, harder to pinpoint

00:41:55.150 --> 00:41:57.349
the specific causes of the changes we're seeing,

00:41:57.989 --> 00:42:00.750
and crucially, harder to make better, more precise

00:42:00.750 --> 00:42:03.909
predictions for extreme weather events, those

00:42:03.909 --> 00:42:06.610
devastating heat waves, droughts, floods we were

00:42:06.610 --> 00:42:08.590
talking about earlier. So it affects disaster

00:42:08.590 --> 00:42:11.510
preparedness too. Absolutely. It would hinder

00:42:11.510 --> 00:42:14.010
our ability to identify the places most vulnerable

00:42:14.010 --> 00:42:16.429
to climate impacts. It would make it harder to

00:42:16.429 --> 00:42:19.130
find promising locations for potential carbon

00:42:19.130 --> 00:42:24.059
dioxide removal projects. harder to even verify

00:42:24.059 --> 00:42:25.900
if those kinds of efforts are actually working.

00:42:26.179 --> 00:42:27.860
Right. You can't measure success if you stop

00:42:27.860 --> 00:42:31.280
measuring. Exactly. Spinrad warned, it's not

00:42:31.280 --> 00:42:33.280
just the climate mission that gets compromised.

00:42:33.780 --> 00:42:36.019
It's the ability to protect people and property

00:42:36.019 --> 00:42:39.219
for things like wildfire. So much is lost with

00:42:39.219 --> 00:42:41.340
the elimination and termination of these labs.

00:42:42.019 --> 00:42:44.599
It directly impacts our ability to prepare for

00:42:44.599 --> 00:42:48.039
and mitigate future disasters. That's incredibly

00:42:48.039 --> 00:42:50.579
alarming. It touches everything from basic science

00:42:50.579 --> 00:42:52.710
to protecting lives and property. What about

00:42:52.710 --> 00:42:55.070
the international picture? What message does

00:42:55.070 --> 00:42:57.110
shutting down this world -renowned monitoring

00:42:57.110 --> 00:43:00.050
send globally? Ralph Keeling, he's a climate

00:43:00.050 --> 00:43:02.650
scientist at Scripps, and importantly, the son

00:43:02.650 --> 00:43:04.429
of Charles Keeling, who started the Mauna Loa

00:43:04.429 --> 00:43:07.230
curves, he emphasized that NOAA's monitoring

00:43:07.230 --> 00:43:09.550
effort is really the backbone of the global effort

00:43:09.550 --> 00:43:12.090
to track greenhouse gases. The backbone? Yeah.

00:43:12.389 --> 00:43:14.230
He stressed that scientists and governments all

00:43:14.230 --> 00:43:16.110
over the world rely heavily on the Keeling curve

00:43:16.110 --> 00:43:19.230
data and the broader NOAA network data to calibrate

00:43:19.230 --> 00:43:21.570
their own measurements and build reliable global

00:43:21.570 --> 00:43:24.269
cl - climate models. Abandoning Mauna Loa, he

00:43:24.269 --> 00:43:26.829
said, would send yet another clear signal to

00:43:26.829 --> 00:43:29.070
the world that the United States is no longer

00:43:29.070 --> 00:43:31.610
serious about climate change. That's a powerful

00:43:31.610 --> 00:43:34.210
statement, undermining U .S. scientific leadership

00:43:34.210 --> 00:43:36.909
and potentially global cooperation on climate.

00:43:37.409 --> 00:43:39.510
It certainly risks doing that, especially when

00:43:39.510 --> 00:43:42.610
tackling climate change absolutely requires global

00:43:42.610 --> 00:43:45.809
collaboration and shared, trusted data. It seems

00:43:45.809 --> 00:43:48.010
so incredibly clear listening to all this that

00:43:48.010 --> 00:43:50.250
these aren't just isolated decisions happening

00:43:50.250 --> 00:43:53.170
in different agencies. These proposed cuts and

00:43:53.170 --> 00:43:56.969
policy shifts at EPA, at FEMA, at NOAA. They

00:43:56.969 --> 00:44:00.250
feel deeply, maybe even dangerously interconnected.

00:44:00.570 --> 00:44:02.409
That's the absolutely essential takeaway here.

00:44:02.429 --> 00:44:04.710
We need to connect the dots. OK, let's try. If

00:44:04.710 --> 00:44:07.590
you have regulatory reductions at the EPA aimed

00:44:07.590 --> 00:44:10.030
at making things cheaper and easier for industries,

00:44:10.289 --> 00:44:12.449
then a direct and frankly predictable potential

00:44:12.449 --> 00:44:15.010
consequence is more environmental degradation

00:44:15.010 --> 00:44:17.389
and critically for climate, potentially higher

00:44:17.389 --> 00:44:19.969
greenhouse gas emissions. If there's less oversight,

00:44:20.130 --> 00:44:22.690
less regulation, the incentive to pollute less

00:44:22.690 --> 00:44:25.469
is naturally diminished. Right. And if industries

00:44:25.469 --> 00:44:27.920
are potentially emitting more, at the exact same

00:44:27.920 --> 00:44:31.119
time, the system is designed to precisely track

00:44:31.119 --> 00:44:33.739
those emissions. Monoloa, the whole NOAA network

00:44:33.739 --> 00:44:36.260
we just discussed, are being dismantled. Exactly.

00:44:36.360 --> 00:44:38.599
It's this compounding effect. More pollution

00:44:38.599 --> 00:44:41.320
potentially going into the atmosphere and less

00:44:41.320 --> 00:44:44.260
ability to accurately measure and track it. And

00:44:44.260 --> 00:44:47.500
a direct consequence of that could well be an

00:44:47.500 --> 00:44:50.300
acceleration, an exacerbation. of climate change

00:44:50.300 --> 00:44:53.699
itself, which means potentially more frequent,

00:44:54.119 --> 00:44:57.480
more intense, extreme weather events. More of

00:44:57.480 --> 00:45:00.000
those floods, hurricanes, heatwaves, wildfires

00:45:00.000 --> 00:45:02.179
that communities across the country are already

00:45:02.179 --> 00:45:04.889
struggling with at an alarming rate. It really

00:45:04.889 --> 00:45:07.610
does risk creating a dangerous feedback loop.

00:45:08.309 --> 00:45:10.309
Less regulation today, potentially leading to

00:45:10.309 --> 00:45:12.949
more severe climate impacts tomorrow? So we could

00:45:12.949 --> 00:45:15.070
have human activity, potentially less regulated,

00:45:15.289 --> 00:45:17.429
contributing more to these severe weather events,

00:45:17.510 --> 00:45:20.170
which then naturally demand more intervention,

00:45:20.309 --> 00:45:22.769
more resources from disaster response agencies.

00:45:23.090 --> 00:45:25.590
But at the exact same time, the main federal

00:45:25.590 --> 00:45:28.690
disaster agency, FEMA, is facing budget cuts

00:45:28.690 --> 00:45:30.769
and its whole operational model is being shifted

00:45:30.769 --> 00:45:32.730
to put more responsibility and more financial

00:45:32.730 --> 00:45:35.739
burden onto the states. And that combination

00:45:35.739 --> 00:45:38.679
creates a truly critical, potentially dangerous

00:45:38.679 --> 00:45:41.320
situation for American citizens. You could find

00:45:41.320 --> 00:45:44.119
people in a far more precarious position, less

00:45:44.119 --> 00:45:47.079
prepared, less supported, less able to adapt

00:45:47.079 --> 00:45:50.539
and survive the increasing frequency and intensity

00:45:50.539 --> 00:45:53.179
of these climate and weather related disasters.

00:45:53.380 --> 00:45:55.780
Especially with cuts to proactive programs like

00:45:55.780 --> 00:45:57.719
that BRIC program for resilience we talked about.

00:45:58.380 --> 00:46:00.340
Exactly. Cutting proactive prevention further

00:46:00.340 --> 00:46:02.579
diminishes resilience right at the local level.

00:46:02.650 --> 00:46:05.190
just when it's needed most. It really does look

00:46:05.190 --> 00:46:07.889
like a deeply concerning potential feedback loop.

00:46:08.409 --> 00:46:10.570
The problem gets bigger, but the capacity to

00:46:10.570 --> 00:46:13.210
deal with it shrinks. It absolutely sounds like

00:46:13.210 --> 00:46:16.329
a potential vicious cycle where the impacts intensify,

00:46:16.369 --> 00:46:18.570
but our collective ability to manage them is

00:46:18.570 --> 00:46:21.030
deliberately reduced. Of course, the administration

00:46:21.030 --> 00:46:23.369
and its supporters would frame this very differently.

00:46:23.690 --> 00:46:26.269
Oh, absolutely. While critics are raising alarms

00:46:26.269 --> 00:46:28.929
about this vicious cycle, potentially hurting

00:46:28.929 --> 00:46:31.429
average Americans by increasing their vulnerability,

00:46:31.880 --> 00:46:34.579
The administration frames these changes entirely

00:46:34.579 --> 00:46:36.460
differently. They see them as necessary steps

00:46:36.460 --> 00:46:38.880
for boosting economic growth, ensuring fiscal

00:46:38.880 --> 00:46:41.860
responsibility by cutting federal spending and

00:46:41.860 --> 00:46:44.219
streamlining what they view as bloated government.

00:46:44.800 --> 00:46:47.340
So getting rid of regulatory overreach that they

00:46:47.340 --> 00:46:49.920
believe stifled industry and burdened taxpayers.

00:46:50.380 --> 00:46:53.239
Precisely. It's presented as ultimately benefiting

00:46:53.239 --> 00:46:56.440
the nation by unshackling the economy. It really

00:46:56.440 --> 00:46:58.260
comes down to a fundamental disagreement about

00:46:58.260 --> 00:47:00.179
how you weigh the costs and benefits the economic

00:47:00.179 --> 00:47:03.019
cost of regulation versus the societal and environmental

00:47:03.019 --> 00:47:05.900
costs of not regulating or of reducing disaster

00:47:05.900 --> 00:47:08.659
preparedness. Very different priorities. Wow.

00:47:09.119 --> 00:47:11.340
It's clear these are incredibly complex issues

00:47:11.340 --> 00:47:14.000
with such profound and interconnected implications

00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:16.760
for every single one of us. Okay, let's try to

00:47:16.760 --> 00:47:19.690
recap briefly. We've talked about major changes

00:47:19.690 --> 00:47:22.710
at the Environmental Protection Agency, the elimination

00:47:22.710 --> 00:47:25.449
of its core science research arm, the proposed

00:47:25.449 --> 00:47:27.869
repeal of the endangerment, finding potentially

00:47:27.869 --> 00:47:30.409
reshaping environmental quality and climate regulation

00:47:30.409 --> 00:47:33.489
for years to come. Right. And we explored the

00:47:33.489 --> 00:47:36.010
significant uncertainty now swirling around FEMA,

00:47:36.630 --> 00:47:39.070
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This

00:47:39.070 --> 00:47:41.489
is happening just as we face forecasts for an

00:47:41.489 --> 00:47:43.750
active hurricane season. And there are real concerns

00:47:43.750 --> 00:47:46.309
about whether states can actually shoulder more

00:47:46.309 --> 00:47:48.889
of the disaster response burden without adequate

00:47:48.889 --> 00:47:51.119
federal support and funding. And then we delved

00:47:51.119 --> 00:47:53.440
into the potentially devastating consequences

00:47:53.440 --> 00:47:56.360
of defunding critical climate monitoring infrastructure,

00:47:56.719 --> 00:47:59.179
like the iconic Mauna Loa Observatory and the

00:47:59.179 --> 00:48:02.219
wider NOAA network. Losing that data could seriously

00:48:02.219 --> 00:48:04.460
cripple our ability to understand, predict, and

00:48:04.460 --> 00:48:06.960
respond to our rapidly changing planet. It impacts

00:48:06.960 --> 00:48:09.119
everything from long -term climate projections

00:48:09.119 --> 00:48:12.119
to immediate wildfire and flood warnings. Absolutely.

00:48:12.719 --> 00:48:15.159
These shifts aren't happening in isolation. They

00:48:15.159 --> 00:48:17.440
have truly far -reaching implications for public

00:48:17.440 --> 00:48:19.889
health, for the quality of our environment, and

00:48:19.889 --> 00:48:22.570
for the resilience of individuals and communities

00:48:22.570 --> 00:48:25.010
across the entire nation. It just underscores

00:48:25.010 --> 00:48:27.750
how vital it is for all of us to stay informed,

00:48:27.929 --> 00:48:30.269
to really try and understand these crucial issues

00:48:30.269 --> 00:48:33.289
as they continue to unfold, which leaves us with

00:48:33.289 --> 00:48:35.610
a pretty big question to ponder, doesn't it?

00:48:35.650 --> 00:48:38.750
It does. As our planet continues to change, perhaps

00:48:38.750 --> 00:48:41.690
at an accelerating rate, What happens to our

00:48:41.690 --> 00:48:44.230
collective ability to understand, predict, and

00:48:44.230 --> 00:48:47.409
respond when the very systems designed to monitor,

00:48:47.730 --> 00:48:50.630
regulate, and protect us are themselves undergoing

00:48:50.630 --> 00:48:53.510
such profound and potentially damaging transformation?

00:48:53.820 --> 00:48:55.780
That's the critical question. And for listeners

00:48:55.780 --> 00:48:57.639
who want to keep digging into weather patterns,

00:48:58.000 --> 00:48:59.900
climate science and how these kinds of changes

00:48:59.900 --> 00:49:01.860
might impact them personally, definitely make

00:49:01.860 --> 00:49:04.039
sure to follow meteorologist Rob Jones. Where

00:49:04.039 --> 00:49:06.340
can people find him? You can find him on Instagram.

00:49:06.440 --> 00:49:09.199
His handle is just meteorologist. He's also on

00:49:09.199 --> 00:49:12.260
TikTok at TV Meteorologist and over on YouTube.

00:49:12.260 --> 00:49:14.360
Just search for Rob Jones Hurricane. You'll find

00:49:14.360 --> 00:49:16.460
his channel there. And that's also where you

00:49:16.460 --> 00:49:18.559
can find the playlist for this Meteorology Matters

00:49:18.559 --> 00:49:21.559
podcast. We really encourage you to explore these

00:49:21.559 --> 00:49:22.300
topics further.