Generational Consequences: The Impact of Reducing Climate Science Research on Our Future

Local scientists are raising alarms about proposed budget cuts to the United States Geological Survey’s Ecosystem Mission Area. This research program focuses on our natural resources, and cuts could harm both ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.

“Science helps us make better decisions,” says John Organ, a former director in the field. “Less funding means more uncertainty. When decisions are less informed, the consequences can be serious.”

Created in 2010, the Ecosystem Missions Area combines various research programs within the U.S. Department of the Interior. It plays a vital role in studying wildlife and climate change. The need for conservation has been recognized since the early 1900s, shaping how these programs developed over time.

Organ highlights a crucial point: federal and state governments are the stewards of our natural resources. If funding gets slashed, they won’t have the data to make sound decisions. This could lead to long-term damage to ecosystems.

Research informs everything, from fishing and hunting quotas to policies aimed at natural disaster preparedness. According to biologist James Garner, recovery costs from disasters have skyrocketed. “In the 1980s, it was about $40 billion per decade. By the 2010s, it jumped to over $460 billion,” he notes, demonstrating how essential science-based strategies are in minimizing these costs.

With climate change worsening storms and creating droughts, reliable tracking is more critical than ever. Without government support for climate science, Garner warns we’ll be less able to manage these risks effectively. “Cutting this funding might save a little now, but it costs us dearly later,” he explains.

Research and development also power the U.S. economy. A recent report showed R&D accounted for 3.43% of the GDP in 2022, a significant increase from 2.67% in 2012. This boost comes largely from private investments and federal contracts that make up for gaps in research funding.

The current budget for cooperative research units is $28 million, which leads to over three times that amount in external funding. “We support more than 1,000 jobs, including many students at various levels,” Organ adds, highlighting the far-reaching benefits of this research.

A study indicated a 25% cut in public research funding could harm the GDP like the Great Recession did. The data emphasizes the interconnectedness of research funding and economic health.

Stephen McCormick, a scientist with years at the Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, discusses the importance of researching fish populations. Dams block fish from their natural habitats, and solutions like fish ladders, which can be costly and inefficient, need further development. Cutting funding could threaten facilities like the Conte Lab, critical for fish research on the East Coast.

“Most anadromous fish species here are endangered,” McCormick says. “If we lose our research capabilities, we could lose them forever.”

With species often crossing state and national boundaries, collaboration is vital. Federal entities manage these complex relationships, but funding cuts could hinder necessary actions to protect wildlife.

“Public research impacts everyone,” says Thomas Nuhfer, a PhD candidate. “Most don’t see it directly, but our lives are shaped by the infrastructure and support funded by research.”

Source link