Possible Budget Cuts for NOAA

House Republicans have approved a $410 million reduction for NOAA. Basically, this would severely hinder the ability to provide early warnings of natural disasters, which we know is one of the most important aspects of mitigation. The proposal includes a lack of funding for important satellites that NOAA is expecting to replace. Other specific worries include tsunami-monitoring sites in Hawaii and Alaska.

This is ridiculous! Republicans say that NOAA may choose what programs they reduce, so it wouldn’t have to be about weather safety. But that is a HUGE amount of money to cut. I just can’t imagine this having real impact on us. The article states that Republicans have been going after NOAA ever since their research has expanded into climate change. It’s really interesting to see mitigation become a political issue in this sense. What do you guys think?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51154.html

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2011/03/25/the-very-real-consequences-of-defunding-noaa-satellites/

6 thoughts on “Possible Budget Cuts for NOAA

  1. I think this is ridiculous! Like you stated, the ability to provide early warnings for natural disasters is one of the most important aspects of mitigation and if the budget cuts take this away many lives could be endangered. A great quote in the first article you linked stated: “The No. 1 mission of the National Weather Service is to save lives,” Sobien said. “If you start deconstructing the early warning system, something is going to fall through the cracks.” So knowing that saving lives is the number one mission for the NOAA why would the Republicans want to cut their budget resulting in them not being able to fulfill their number one job? This does not make any sense to me and for the sake of thousands (manybe even millions) of lives I hope that this proposal does not pass.

  2. One of my goals in this class is to make you educated consumers and voters; this is one of the voting issues. All of you need to call your congress persons and representatives to be sure that this kind of cut doesn’t happen!!!

  3. Yeah, this is really stupid, like everyone above has mentioned. And I do have to say, sometimes this class feels like a more practical course for the benefit of our real lives than some classes do. It’s kind of like those self-help seminars where the person (in this case our professor) tells you to look for in things, and then we have to apply it to our lives. But yeah, budget cuts are never fun. Unless maybe we tried to cut it in other areas that aren’t the best at making America look like a good place… not that it matters too much to me anyways, since I do think about leaving America in the near future. Canada or those Scandinavian countries, here I come!

  4. It definitely doesn’t sound like the best way to save money by potentially sacrificing lives. I also read an article posted on the CBS website saying that the budget cut would especially target tsunami warning centers. You would’ve thought that maybe the devastation in Japan would have proved that we need these warning systems more than ever.

  5. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requests a total appropriation of $5,554,458,000
    an increase of $806,105,000,
    or 17 percent over the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.
    http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy11_bluebook/FY2011_Congressional_Budget.pdf

    You report House Republicans have approved a $410 million reduction for NOAA.

    So that would be an increase of their budget by only half of what they requested!

Comments are closed.