theguardian.com
White House Ends Funding for Key Climate Research Program
The White House ended funding for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), halting the creation of the next national climate assessment due in 2027, jeopardizing national climate research and leaving the nation without crucial up-to-date climate impact information.
- How does the decision to defund USGCRP relate to broader political and ideological influences on climate policy?
- The decision to defund USGCRP connects to broader patterns of climate change denial and attacks on climate science, influenced by the fossil fuel industry's significant contributions to the Trump re-election campaign and right-wing policy agendas such as Project 2025. The cancellation of the contract with ICF International, which coordinated the USGCRP, effectively dismantles the program and its vital role in coordinating climate research across federal agencies.
- What are the immediate consequences of the White House ending funding for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)?
- The White House ended funding for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the body responsible for producing the national climate assessment. This action halts the creation of the next assessment, due in 2027, leaving the nation without the most up-to-date climate impact information and jeopardizing national climate research. Federal staff involved in USGCRP have been dismissed, disrupting crucial interagency collaborations.
- What are the long-term impacts of halting the national climate assessment on the nation's ability to address climate change?
- The halting of the national climate assessment will hinder evidence-based decision-making on issues such as agriculture, energy, and land and water use. The lack of updated climate risk assessments leaves the nation vulnerable to future extreme weather events and exacerbates the impacts of climate change. This decision has long-term consequences, undermining the country's ability to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the decision to end funding as a deliberate attack on climate science, emphasizing the negative consequences and using strong, emotive language such as "pure villainy" and "crime against the planet." The headline and introduction immediately set a negative tone.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotive language throughout, such as "guts the entire climate research," "effectively destroyed," "pure villainy," and "crime against the planet." These terms are not neutral and clearly favor one perspective. More neutral alternatives could include "significantly impacts," "halts progress on," "controversial decision," and "criticized for.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential benefits or alternative perspectives regarding the ending of USGCRP funding. It focuses heavily on the negative impacts and perspectives of scientists and federal employees involved in the program, neglecting counterarguments or justifications from the administration.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the situation as either complete support for climate research or complete opposition, neglecting the possibility of alternative approaches or funding mechanisms for climate assessments.
Sustainable Development Goals
The termination of funding for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), responsible for producing the national climate assessment, severely undermines climate research and the government