Trump Proposes Broad Range of Environmental, Energy and Health Cuts

Credit: NASA

If anyone had the slightest hope that Donald Trump might spare global warming research in his proposed spending plan, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney stuck a knife through it during a contentious press conference on Thursday.

“As to climate change, I think the President was fairly straightforward saying we’re not spending money on that anymore,” he said. “We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that.”

The budget blueprint gave plenty of examples of the president’s hostility to climate research in particular and environmental policy in general. The proposed cuts include:

  • a 31 percent reduction in the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency, reducing spending from $7.3 billion to $5.7 billion;
  • elimination of the Global Climate Change Initiative;
  • an end to payments to the United Nations’ (UN) climate change programs through the elimination of U.S. funding for the Green Climate Fund and its two precursor Climate Investment Funds.
  • the discontinuation of funding for the EPA’s Clean Power Plan;
  • the cutting the EPA’s Office of Research and Development budget nearly in half from $488 million to approximately $250 million, a reduction of $233 million;
  • the elimination of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy;
  • the cancellation of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program;
  • the elimination of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program;
  • a reduction of $900 million in the DOE’s Office of Science budget;
  • a reduction of $102 million in NASA’s Earth science program;
  • the cancellation of three NASA climate change orbital programs;
  • the shutting off of Earth facing instruments on the DSCOVR spacecraft, which is already in space;
  • the elimination of $250 million in NOAA grants and programs supporting coastal and marine management, research, and education including the Sea Grant program.

The administration gave a number of rationales for the reductions. In some cases such as the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program amd Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, it said the work would be better left to the private sector. The administration said some programs would be better left to state and local authorities.

Trump has previously stated that he believed climate change was a plot by the Chinese government to shut down American heavy industry. He later claimed he was joking. One thing is clear: the president and Congressional Republicans do not believe it’s a serious threat to the world.

The cuts in research were not just limited to environment and energy. The Department of Health and Huiman Services budget would be cut from $84.1 billion to $69 billion, a reduction of $15.1 billion or 17.9 percent.

The National Institutes of Health wouled see more than a third of that reduction — $5.8 billion– with its budget reduced to $25.9 million.

“The Budget includes a major reorganization of NIH’s Institutes and Centers to help focus resources on the highest priority research and training activities, including: eliminating the Fogarty International Center; consolidating the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality within NIH; and other consolidations and structural changes across NIH organizations and activities,” the budget blueprint states.

American Geophysical Union (AGU) Executive Director and CEO Christine McEntee slammed the proposed cutbacks as shortsighted and dangerous in a statement issued on Thursday.

“President Trump’s proposed budget, if enacted, would be a step backward for scientific progress, jeopardize the U.S.’s role as a leader in innovation, and harm the American public. The cuts to federal agencies such as DOE, EPA, NOAA, NSF, USGS, and programs within NASA, will put the safety and wellbeing of millions of families and companies at risk,” McEntree said. “These agencies provide research and data that are critical in informing and shaping decisions that protect public health and safety, support national security, and facilitate economic stability and job growth in the US….

“Investment in Earth and space science has given us better satellite data for our military, more accurate forecasting that protects the public from natural hazards, and improved our understanding of the effects of a changing climate on agricultural, ecosystems, and human health,” she added.

“Without the critical data and information this research provides, who will farmers turn to when they need help managing their crops? Who will the Pentagon turn to when they need information to support effective troop movements? Who will families turn to when a hurricane or tornado threatens their lives and livelihoods?” McEntree said.

  • duheagle

    Those with limited powers of imagination doubtless wonder at many things the rest of us find perfectly straightforward.

  • duheagle

    No, I’ve read about them both. It was in all the papers.

  • duheagle

    You may be right about at least some of the so-called “scientists” pushing this load of road apples not being stupid. Not being corrupt seems like a much harder case to make.

  • duheagle

    Yes, by all means avoid WUWT and Aunt Judy. Wouldn’t want to corrupt your tiny little robot Warmist mind with something so corrosive as empirical truth.

  • duheagle

    Myself, I’m a Nobel Laureate neurosurgeon, a much-in-demand Hollywood script doctor and a two-time Mr. Olympia married to my wife, Carmen Electra, who I’ve seen naked. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Thanks, though, for the link. It actually was quite enlightening. Especially the stuff at the subsequent link entitled Roger Revelle’s Discovery. Seems that what Dr. Revelle discovered is that ocean water is a formidably complex buffered solution that is remarkably resistant to casual changes in its pH. So much for one of Warmology’s most annoying subsidiary untruths, namely that the oceans are rapidly acidifying under the assault of rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Nope.

    I already knew this claim to be bushwah, as the over a century of glass pH meter readings of seawater pH show no such trend. But it’s always nice to learn more about the mechanisms underlying the data that eviscerate one or another aspect of the whole Climate Change fraud. So thanks for the tip. I’ll definitely be passing it along.

  • duheagle

    “The End is Near,” eh? Was that you I recently saw waving a big sign to that effect down on 5th Street in LA?

  • And of course being the insane anti-science crank shill that you are, you somehow think that you speak for the ;’rest of us’. So not only is there an authoritarian crank living inside your head, there are many many of them.

    Er … youz.

  • And yet you think pushing pistons with little miniature explosions is the way to go, long after science says that’s not the way to go, and if you keep going that way you children are not going to think of you fondly.

  • No problems there. Your crank shill echo chamber is safe, snowflake.

  • That must have someone else. I publish.

  • duheagle

    Just out of curiosity, can you name even one glacier that existed in 2000 that’s now entirely gone? Some glaciers wax and wane, others pretty much hold steady and still others have been in long term decline since far before carbon-burning industry was a thing.

    We are after all living in an interstitial era between ice ages; one that has, in fact, lasted an atypically long time. The normative condition of Earth in recent eons has been that it is mostly ice-covered. Receding glaciers pretty much define what goes on in such an interstitial.

    Not even the hardest-core Warmists seem inclined to wail and moan about the disappearance of the glaciers that left, say, the Great Lakes in their wake. Why be overly sentimental about the ones that are left? Paleolithic humanity and proto-humanity saw a lot of glaciers disappear. Hard to imagine the sight traumatized them much.

    What’s happening in the Arctic is what has long been happening in the Arctic. There’s a lot of ice up there and also polar bears. Neither are systematically diminishing. Back in the early 2000’s there was a lot of scare talk to this effect, but none of it has proven true. As for the shoddy lie about ocean acidification, see one of my replies above to TLE. That’s bollocks too.

  • duheagle

    Me, personally, I am. Thanks.

  • duheagle

    This word “treason?” It does not mean what you seem to think it means.

  • And you are a valuable comment contributor to Parabolic Arc no doubt.

  • duheagle

    That would be more for our mutual host, Mr. Messier, to say than for me.

  • duheagle

    As noted many times previously, “Climate Science” has about as much to do the real science as does Christian Science. Putting “science” in a label does not change the underlying reality – or lack of reality, as the case may be. The late East Germany used to call itself the “German Democratic Republic. North Korea still calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Pasting nice-sounding words onto skullduggery is one of the core tropes of leftism; hence, “Climate Science.”

  • duheagle

    Vaudeville is dead, Tom. You can’t make a career by taking an eight-minute act around the country and just repeating it anymore. You need new material.

  • I’m sure many prestigious investors, scientists, engineers and billionaire industrialists turn you you and your publications for insights and advice.

  • If you want new material from me it will cost you.

    I’m booked solid until the end of the decade.

    Topological superconductivity, and all that.

  • duheagle

    And yet you seem to find open-ended amounts of time you can devote to upbraiding and impugning your alleged inferiors. I guess I shouldn’t make any near-term plans that require topological superconductivity.

  • duheagle

    Happy to oblige if you could help me out with a couple matters. What exactly are the standard SI units for ad hominem and self-importance? And where can I find well-calibrated measuring equipment for same?

  • duheagle

    If any such are turning to you for such advice, I’d like to know their names so I can short their stocks.

  • The ‘crank’.

  • I’m not sure if Drake Holdings is publicly traded.

  • windbourne

    uh, no.
    I am opposed to BOTH far right and far left extremists.
    I have been all along. You can read my postings all over and you will find that I knock BOTH major parties for being the nightmare, liars, and non-innovators that they are.

  • windbourne

    and yet, the top brass CONTINUE to push the same philosophy.
    And none of the top brass was pushed out by O, except for those that were fired.
    And none of those was for not speaking out about what O wanted.

  • During an election, it means sedition. After the election, it means treason.

    I call it coordination and collusion with a Russian enemy during a cyberwar.

  • jimmycrackcorn

    You are also contributing millions to the space industry?

  • I have publications. It might help you if you read some of them.

    Certainly I won’t contribute to NASA in their present state of dysfunction.

  • duheagle

    And during the Red Army purges, none of the top brass were pushed out by Stalin, except those that were shot.

  • windbourne

    A totalitarian nation is QUITE different than America. That includes the military.