Trump cancels NASA’s greenhouse gas monitoring system after scrapping clean air regulation

Scrapping our futures?

His terms is over in 2 years. Even if he won..another 4.

We have about a few billion years left here, give or take a billion.

Trust me, he has zero affect on anything long term. Certainly not the air.

If you don’t know how much greenhouse gas is in the atmosphere, you can’t have global warming.

5D environmental chess.

originally posted by: NorthernLites
a reply to: lostbook

Good.

Resources could be better used in other areas of research.

ROFL.

Yeah, you subside fossil fuel exploration and production with a whopping 20 billion annually.

But spending 10 million to monitor the effects of fossil fuel use is a waste of resources.

a reply to: moebius

Apparently a lot of people don't care what kind of a place we leave to our children, as long as they get some minor temporary benefit. Shortsighted, lack of giving a sh@t, can't see beyond their own backyard..MAGA

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
The European Environment Agency admits that Europe is falling short of the goals. Many countries are. We are polluting less than all of Europe. So Ms. Gallagher will have to do better than that.

Excuse me?

edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu...

EU28 Population is 500+ million people, USA is less than 400 million. EU28 pollutes less both Per Capita and in actual amount.

- e360.yale.edu...
- www.nytimes.com...
- euanmearns.com...

a reply to: lostbook

So where are all these supposed things that you described,other then someones 2 cents,libtards on this site you post then read facts later,give it up

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
The European Environment Agency admits that Europe is falling short of the goals. Many countries are. We are polluting less than all of Europe. So Ms. Gallagher will have to do better than that.

Because European nations are missing targets the US is polluting less?

Do you have a link?

Seems someone linked a couple of replies above me, I figured that was some sort of logical fallacy.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: lostbook

So where are all these supposed things that you described,other then someones 2 cents,libtards on this site you post then read facts later,give it up

Lol, you never fail to make me laugh.

originally posted by: makemap
The Ice cap isn't melting fast enough guys, release more CO2. High Methane means more explosions right? So does that means sewers lines will be set on fire?
I can't wait til he scrap Sulfur dioxide monitoring.

Well we will have to scrap it soon in US. We have found ways to use coal that are much cleaner and the future is gasification of the coal and gas burning power plants where the other alternatives are not suitable. CO2 is not a pollutant and doesn't significantly raise temps of the Earth, we will produce CO2 and H2O from the processes of manufacturing instead of SO2, NO2-NOX and Ozone (O3).

I happen to monitor SO2 and the other pollutants. The fact is Acid rain has disappeared as this SO2 pollutant is only around the coal fired plants and the high readings that might violate our regulations are found near the source and the employees are the most likely in danger (OSHA is heavily involved for their safety).

In a few more years we won't need it due to the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) being used for the Air Pollution Permits that regulate the SO2 and the other criteria pollutants. The boilers in the plants have all just about finished moving to natural gas as their source of energy. Ozone is negligible now except in Asia and Southern Cali where Cali is getting some of its problems from China pollution transporting Ozone. Western society has found out how to move away from raw coal and use sophisticated bag houses where they still do burn the now "treated" coal that is much cleaner to burn than a rock made out of coal.

I have been in planning meetings with the EPA and other pollutant monitoring scientist like myself. It was not the feeling of the gov scientist below Washington level leadership to lower the standards. But the leaders of the last administration of the EPA were pushing for more controls that would hurt jobs and not deliver any improvements that mattered, when we were already at background levels of Ozone and NO2-NOX because of the policy's that were in place since 2008. They have stated on more than one occasion "you people don't deserve automobiles". That is the agenda of the past three administrations at the EPA. NO CARS! I protested and the other scientist slammed the EPA leadership, they dropped it for now but the goal was all people but a few will live in big cities and no cars will be allowed.

Meanwhile the EPA ignored the water problems in WV and Michigan to name two states I know of that the EPA have failed the people..... Go figure.. micromanage the air pollution while most of the rest of the world chokes their citizens. Asia is not putting any controls in place. Then our EPA ignore leads pipes our kids are exposed to in order to ingest water from their so called officially 'clean ' source.

We could do away with the EPA soon because the laws are in place and people are decidedly not going drink lead tainted water or breath air pollution any more. The local governments have the right to be stricter than the Feds on pollution. Local governments can't ignore the current laws and allow pollution either.

Going back to the original article:

The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords,

So Trump walked us out of the non-binding accords, and now walks us out of the money dumps from the same accords. Like him or not, he keeps his campaign promises. I'm sure some activist group or another will sue and get the 9th circuit to issue some idiotic ruling or another.

originally posted by: lostbook
I'm just a messenger....don't shoot the messenger! Well, it appears that in his efforts to continue his "climate change is a joke" narrative, Trump has now cancelled NASA's Greenhouse Gas Monitoring system. That system WAS known as the Carbon Monitoring System and it used aircraft as well as satellites to keep tabs on the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Donald Trump has cancelled NASA’s greenhouse gas monitoring system, prompting concern it will hinder efforts to bring down global emissions.
The space agency’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) has until now used satellite and aircraft instruments to monitor carbon dioxide and methane levels remotely - spending $10m (£7.35m) each year.
But the White House has now scrapped the funding as part of its wider attack on climate science.
The moves jeopardizes plans to verify levels of emissions in the US.

"If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the [Paris climate] agreement," Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University's Centre for International Environment and Resource Policy, told Science Magazine.

I'm holding judgement on Trump until I see what he does with his power. I truly hope he doesn't do something really stupid. However, I gotta say that moves such as this make(s) it even harder for me to support him. It seems that Trump is crapping all over our futures. Sure, some of his actions is putting a little money in our pockets in the immediate but those same actions will bring us ruin down the road. Just my opinion. Maybe the Climate Change Budget is a cash cow for some scientists but at least it is something; without it, we have nothing being done about the climate...

But go ahead.......tell me how I'm a liberal-lefty, CNN lover for not agreeing with everything Trump does or says. What do I know anyway? I'm just a messenger..So, what says ATS?

www.yahoo.com...

No one cares what u think at a trillion bucks a whack.

The earth will work it out or do you really think you chumps can change a planet?

Last I heard, you can't change a diaper.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: NorthernLites
a reply to: lostbook

Good.

Resources could be better used in other areas of research.

Why wouldnt the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be observing the atmosphere?

Observing the Atmosphere as neutral Scientist? Yes!

Observing it to prove the government approved talking points, meh!

N ot
A
S tr8
A nswer

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: NorthernLites
a reply to: lostbook

Good.

Resources could be better used in other areas of research.

Why wouldnt the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be observing the atmosphere?

Maybe if they didn't have to hitchhike with the Russians to get into orbit i would agree.
The space program fell to crap with the space shuttle and still hasn't recovered.
They should narrow their focus.

Cool.

As long as there is plenty of cash to research new weapon systems, we're good, right?

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: NorthernLites
a reply to: lostbook

Good.

Resources could be better used in other areas of research.

ROFL.

Yeah, you subside fossil fuel exploration and production with a whopping 20 billion annually.

But spending 10 million to monitor the effects of fossil fuel use is a waste of resources.

CMS isn't even cut, unless they're talking about the budget proposal for 2019. A little premature is an understatement.

OCO3 is getting cut, but OCO2 is still in the sky as it was. Maybe there's something to be said about not launching a new OCO, because OCO2 cost approximately 500 million dollars, not "ten million or so".

That's as far as I'm getting. This is some bad science journalism.

The article in the OP is garbage and whoever wrote it is deliberately propagandizing so badly it's not even funny. Just read the budget proposal.
NASA link

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: NorthernLites
a reply to: lostbook

Good.

Resources could be better used in other areas of research.

Why wouldnt the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be observing the atmosphere?

Maybe if they didn't have to hitchhike with the Russians to get into orbit i would agree.
The space program fell to crap with the space shuttle and still hasn't recovered.
They should narrow their focus.

They only piggy back for manned missions. Atmosphere Observations wouldn't fall under the same group as manned missions.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: NorthernLites
a reply to: lostbook

Good.

Resources could be better used in other areas of research.

Why wouldnt the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be observing the atmosphere?

Observing the Atmosphere as neutral Scientist? Yes!

Observing it to prove the government approved talking points, meh!

N ot
A
S tr8
A nswer

They do the first and you know it, so stop lying in an attempt to prove your false point.

a reply to: lostbook

Costs to Much Money , Plus it isn't Going to Make America Great Again . Got It ?

why waste money? NOAA already monitors these things, it's called The Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, and what's stopping private companies from building similar things as the CMS? or even private donations? it's only government funding that was canceled not the actual program.

do we really need multiple projects that do the same thing? how much money is wasted this way elsewhere?

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: NorthernLites
a reply to: lostbook

Good.

Resources could be better used in other areas of research.

Why wouldnt the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be observing the atmosphere?

Observing the Atmosphere as neutral Scientist? Yes!

Observing it to prove the government approved talking points, meh!

N ot
A
S tr8
A nswer

They do the first and you know it, so stop lying in an attempt to prove your false point.

I don't have to prove it since it is so true. When does NASA give straight answers I can believe anymore? Probably in the 60's since we could believe them totally...