The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a very clear mission statement: Science, Service, and Stewardship.
1. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts;
2. To share that knowledge and information with others; and
3. To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
At least that is what it is supposed to be doing. With the new band of nihilist conmen in charge, anything and everything remotely positive is up for grabs. The acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere under Trump is Timothy Gallaudet. During a Powerpoint presentation, during a “vision summit” at the Department of Commerce, Gallaudet vomited up the idea of deleting the word “climate” from the mission statement. Gallaudet suggested that number one would become “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”
This was coupled with a push to “triple the size of the U.S. aquaculture industry within a decade” in hopes of relieving the seafood trade deficit. The seafood trade deficit is a real thing, mind you, but sending off carbon emergency flares in order to deal with it in the short term is exactly why we are in the pickle we are now—both environmentally and economically.
NOAA’s report also emphasizes that the country’s trade deficit in edible seafood grew significantly in 2016. Although the United States exported $5.4 billion in edible seafood products in 2016, the country imported $19.5 billion in edible seafood. The total value of edible seafood imported in 2016 increased by $693.0 million compared to 2015 (an increase of 3.7%), while the total value of edible seafood exported out of the United States declined by $186.1 million in 2016 compared to 2015 (a decrease of 3.3%).
One of the things you will notice in those numbers from NOAA is that all those billions of dollars would be covered nicely by NOT having given trillion dollar tax cuts to the wealthy. But the need to shave off “deficit” numbers for an administration that has fleeced the American public, while pretending they are fiscally conservative, is high. We have some elections coming up and if you cannot pretend you’re working to stabilize our newly ballooning deficit numbers, you can’t lie as effectively.
Needless to say, this “idea” was not well received by the scientific community.
Gallaudet’s attempts to sneak one by a community of people tasked with the finest and most granular reviewing process having failed, NOAA released a statement declaring that everybody was overreacting, and forget their acting under secretary ever said anything.
The PowerPoint "was intended to share new ways NOAA could augment the DOC's [Department of Commerce] strategic plan. It was not intended to exclude NOAA's important climate and conservation efforts, which are essential for protecting lives and the environment. Nor should this presentation be considered a final, vetted proposal," the statement said.
While this all seems like a few words here and there, it makes a big difference when it comes time for the numerous scientific avenues being pursued by, and under, NOAA to receive funding and continued support. The leadership can ignore longer-term projects with greater global importance, and move resources toward short-term attempts at “fixing” immediate economic apparitions.
“It’s a focus totally on economic development, and very little on preserving public trust resources,” said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former regional administrator at NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, of the presentation. [...]
Rosenberg said he doubted that U.S. aquaculture could grow dramatically, given all the other current uses of and demands on the coastal real estate. As for lowering the country’s trade deficit in seafood, he said, “it’s just not going to happen.”
It’s also important to note here that just like the Trump/Republican campaigns, the idea that nothing proactive is happening with our fisheries is a paper tiger. Gallaudet might as well have worn a “Make America’s Fisheries Great Again” hat to his presentation. Jane Lubchenco, a marine scientist at Oregon State University, has written and studied how best the United States can deal with maintaining and protecting our fisheries; her opinions lean toward developing and investing in more sustainable practices; she considers the Trump administration’s attempts to eliminate “basic functions of NOAA is foolhardy, ignorant, shortsighted, and very stupid.” She compares it to moving around someone’s vital organs and then expecting them to remain healthy.