Weather modification bills, fueled by ‘magic' and conspiracy theories, advance in Louisiana
Two bills to ban weather modification in Louisiana have quietly moved their way through the state legislature this session, as a cohort of other states have moved to do the same with technology that purports to encourage rain or alter temperature.
Senate Bill 46, sponsored by Sen. 'Big Mike' Fesi, R-Houma, and House Bill 608, by Rep. Kim Coates, R-Ponchatoula, would ban the intentional release of chemicals into the atmosphere to alter the weather or climate. Coates' measure includes a $200,000 fine for any violation.
Weather modification is a wide-reaching term and often marbled with deep veins of misinformation. Human efforts and theories that attempt to alter precipitation or temperature are real but largely new areas of scientific study. The concept of weather modification has produced solid science along with skepticism and conspiracy theories in the decades since studies began.
The Louisiana bills specifically reference cloud seeding, or attempts to encourage rainfall with aerosols sprayed into the air. They also cover solar radiation modification, which tries to deflect sunlight away from Earth to curb increasing temperatures and associated climate change.
Cloud seeding experiments are exceedingly rare along the Gulf Coast, and solar radiation modification exists only as a theoretical concept. Robert Rauber, an atmospheric scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, said cloud seeding simply doesn't have widespread use in Louisiana, where rain is relatively abundant.
'The Gulf Coast doesn't need rain,' Rauber said, unlike the mountainous or desert states where cloud seeding is a more attractive option. 'The reason why they cloud seed out west is to increase water supplies.'
Rauber has participated in a variety of cloud seeding experiments in mountainous regions of the western United States and said the types of clouds along the Gulf Coast aren't really conducive for seeding.
'It's never been proven to work' at scale with the puffy, cumulus clouds more common in the South, said Rauber. 'These clouds form wherever the heck they want … you can't target an area very effectively.'
Cloud seeding can't alter the paths or intensity of hurricanes either, said Rauber. He cited failed experiments in the 1940s when scientists seeded hurricanes with dry ice to see if they could weaken their intensity. Although researchers learned valuable information on how hurricanes formed and traveled, they were not able to change their path or intensity.
One business has conducted cloud seeding experiments along the Gulf Coast, according to Rauber, who stressed that the science is shaky.
Rainmaker Technology Corp., a geoengineering company based in El Segundo, California, has conducted experiments along the Gulf Coast as recently as March, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration records. The company claims to use charged water particles to promote rain instead of aerosols.
'It's magic as far as I'm concerned because I have not seen any scientific research done in a proper way that shows that any of that is effective,' Rauber said. Misinformation and unproven methods that Rainmaker Technology and other companies promote adds to public fear and conspiracy theories surrounding weather modification, the professor said.
Rainmaker Technology did not respond to calls for comment.
Cloud seeding with silver iodide has been practiced for more than 70 years, and the scientific consensus is that the amount used is relatively effective, with the right clouds, and environmentally safe. Sprayed into clouds as an aerosol, silver iodide freezes and gives moisture-heavy clouds something to grab onto, coaxing its water molecules to condense and fall from the sky as rain.
James Diaz, a medical toxicologist and professor emeritus at the LSU Health Sciences Center School of Public Health in New Orleans, said silver can prompt reactions when ingested in large doses and lab experiments suggest the heavy metal could be harmful to aquatic life in large amounts over time, but he said the amounts used for cloud seeding do not alarm him.
'These toxicities are unlikely after cloud seeding,' Diaz said.
It's a similar story with iodide. Large amounts over long periods of time can do environmental and health harm, but Diaz said the amounts needed for cloud seeding aren't worrying.
'We should be more concerned about petrochemicals and pesticides,' he said.
Fesi's bill doesn't apply to firefighting aerosols or pesticides used for agriculture. Coates said in an interview she intends to amend her bill so that it would not apply to pollutants emitted from the burning of fossil fuels.
Fesi mentioned in his floor speech that sulfur dioxide is among the chemicals he believes are being sprayed into the atmosphere. There is no evidence that cloud seeding uses sulfur dioxide. The burning of fossil fuels, namely coal and oil at power plants and industrial facilities, is one of the largest sources of sulfur dioxide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Coates and Fesi clarified in interviews their bills will not regulate industrial emissions.
Coates said she considers her bill to be part of the wider push in Republican-led states to ban weather modification, adding she believes the issue to have bipartisan appeal. Florida recently approved legislation similar to what's under consideration in Louisiana, and Tennessee approved a ban on weather modification in 2024.
'I just decided that I wanted to bring the bill because I don't feel like anyone in Louisiana gave someone the right to do research in the air above us,' Coates said. 'That's our air above us, and we haven't given anybody permission, anybody the right to spray or do any modification above us.'
When asked about the lack of widespread weather modification experiments in Louisiana, Coates said her bill is more precautionary.
'Why mess with Mother Nature?' she added.
Coates' bill advanced from the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment with unanimous support and awaits debate in the full House.
Fesi testified on the Senate floor April 28 during debate over his bill that he believes 'certain agencies within the federal government are doing cloud seeding and geoengineering.' In an interview Friday, the senator was asked what evidence he had to support his claims.
'Look up in our sky,' Fesi answered.
In an interview, Fesi later said he sees 'just tons and tons of cloud seeding' above his backyard and described it as 'all of the stripes across the skies.'
Neither bill specifically discusses banning contrails, short for condensation trails. The thin, white cloud streaks that stretch behind airplanes are created as warm exhaust from jet engines meet the icy cold atmosphere, similarly to how warm breath briefly creates a fog in cold air. Unsubstantiated contrail theories attempt to connect weather modification and contrails, alleging jets are spraying chemicals for reasons ranging from weather alterations to population control.
Sen. Regina Barrow, D-Baton Rouge, was the only lawmaker to question Fesi's claims on the Senate floor. He responded that '32 different agencies collect money for geoengineering of our weather.' Pressed by Barrow for details, Fesi shared a widely debunked conspiracy theory that the federal government is spraying aerosols to block sunlight, and that the materials – namely aluminum oxide – have been found in agricultural fields from contrail chemical spraying.
No evidence exists of a government program that conducts or collects money for cloud seeding or solar radiation modification experiments.
With no one else challenging his statements, Fesi's bill advanced from the Senate on a 27-12 party line vote, with Republicans prevailing. The measure awaits committee consideration in the House of Representatives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
a day ago
- CNBC
Trump warned by top Senate Democrats to rethink advanced AI chip sales to China
Six Senate Democrats on Friday released an open letter asking President Donald Trump to reconsider his decision to allow tech giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to sell AI semiconductor chips to China in exchange for 15% of revenue from the sales. The letter — signed by Senators Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Christopher Coons, D-Del.; and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — was in response to an Aug. 11 announcement by Trump that Nvidia and AMD would pay the U.S. government a 15% cut of revenue from chip sales to China in exchange for export licenses. "Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains. The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies," the letter states. "The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm," the letter continues. Senators also warned that selling advanced AI chips — specifically Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips — to China could help strengthen its military systems, a claim that Nvidia denies. In a statement to CNBC, a Nvidia spokesperson said: "The H20 would not enhance anyone's military capabilities, but would have helped America attract the support of developers worldwide and win the AI race. Banning the H20 cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, without any benefit." The letter from Senate Democrats also requests a detailed response from the administration by Friday, Aug. 22, regarding the current deal involving Nvidia and AMD, as well as any similar arrangements being made with other companies. "We again urge your administration to quickly reverse course and abandon this reckless plan to trade away U.S. technology leadership," the letter states. A request for comment from the White House and AMD was not immediately returned. Despite Trump allowing chip sales to resume, it has already become clear that China isn't welcoming Nvidia back with open arms, instead urging tech companies to avoid buying U.S. companies' chips, according to a Bloomberg report. "We're hearing that this is a hard mandate, and that [authorities are actually] stopping additional orders of H20s for some companies," Qingyuan Lin, a senior analyst covering China semiconductors at Bernstein, told CNBC. In a separate report, The Information said regulators in China have ordered major tech companies, including ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent, to suspend Nvidia chip purchases until a national security review is complete. —
Forbes
5 days ago
- Forbes
Engineered Confusion: The $100 Million Threat To Business Integrity
Climate misinformation is no longer confined to the margins of public discourse. It has matured into a systemic force, a strategic instrument capable of shaping regulation, market dynamics, and public trust. A 2024 joint report from the U.S. Senate Budget Committee and House Oversight Committee revealed fossil fuel–aligned actors are spending more than $100 million annually to promote misleading narratives and block climate action, even as those same actors receive $600 billion in subsidies. The strategy has evolved: from outright denial of climate science to emotionally engineered scepticism, designed to create doubt, delay, and division. How Misinformation Is Rewriting Climate Policy The disinformation ecosystem now actively shapes regulatory outcomes. In 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to roll back its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, a basis legal and scientific ruling that underpins all U.S. federal climate regulation. Many consider this a direct result of coordinated lobbying and strategic messaging around political positions. Climate regulation was reframed as an attack on economic freedom and consumer choice, despite scientific consensus and broad public support. As Dr. Frederic Bertley, president and chief executive officer of the Center of Science & Industry (COSI), said in an interview, 'Policies are written by elected officials, usually attorneys or political scientists, not scientists. And most don't have a basic science literacy background. Sometimes, they base their decisions on information from lobbyists not experts, and the lobbyists frequently preserve legislation that allows the status quo.' Parallel efforts have targeted foundational data infrastructure. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), long trusted for climate modelling, has suffered funding cuts and the closure of key data centers. Without access to granular risk data, companies are left navigating climate volatility with impaired visibility – especially in terms of increasingly extreme weather. As Sean Buchan, intelligence c-ordinator at the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition observes, 'The goal isn't to win a debate. It's to erode trust in institutions and paralyze decision-making. That paralysis directly harms business continuity.' Drilled Media has been instrumental in documenting the evolution of fossil fuel communication strategy. Today's misinformation doesn't deny climate science outright, it reframes the stakes. This new genre of messaging, dubbed petroganda, recasts fossil fuels as protectors of personal freedom, national sovereignty, and economic stability, while painting clean energy and climate policy as elite, costly, and controlling. But, as Buchan points out, 'There's actually new studies showing that almost all far-right parties in Europe have been using arguments, false arguments, against solar energy.' These narratives aren't grassroots; they're crafted through market research and deployed strategically to trigger emotion, deepen polarization, and block consensus on climate action. Buchan explains, 'You talk about facts, and they are seeking not emotionless truth, but emotional triggers. And then people believe the actors.' The effects are tangible as petroganda fuels local opposition to clean energy projects, inflates perceived risks in ESG investing, and enables deregulation by undermining climate governance, weakening the very institutions businesses depend on for forecasting, planning, and insurance. It also weaponizes identity, framing fossil fuels as aligned with the working class and masculinity, while painting renewables as urban and elite. This cultural divide silences companies and delays progress, while all the while AI is amplifying the threat. Generative tools produce expert-sounding disinformation at scale, embedding false narratives into dashboards, supply chains, and internal systems, making manipulation faster, cheaper, and harder to detect. What's really challenging is the level of public misunderstanding of just how many people actually do want to see climate action. A 2024 global survey revealed that 89% of people support stronger climate action, but most mistakenly believe that few others do. This misperception weakens the mandate for action, discouraging executives from pursuing bold strategies for fear of reputational backlash or political reprisal. Correcting this gap is more than a communications challenge, it's a market issue. Dr. Bertley says, 'Soundbites don't necessarily create understanding. If you meet people where they are, respect their questions, and avoid arrogance, you can move the needle. But the messaging needs to connect with what people care about.' At the same time, behavioural studies show that when people learn the majority supports action, willingness to engage, invest, and advocate increases sharply. In other words, telling the truth about public sentiment isn't just good ethics, it's smart business. When Ad Spend Fuels The Opposition Behind the scenes, the corporate advertising supply chain has become one of the most over-looked vectors for disinformation risk. Millions in programmatic ad spend are routed, often without oversight, to platforms that host climate lies, conspiracy theories, and hyper-partisan disinformation. As Harriet Kingaby, co-founder of the Conscious Advertising Network, explains, 'Advertisers are pouring money into a black box. There are so many middlemen in programmatic ad tech that brands have no idea where their ads land.' The consequences go beyond reputational risk. CAN research shows that 45% of consumers would reconsider their support for a brand funding climate misinformation, even indirectly. And while disinformation earns ad revenue through viral reach, up to 70% of legitimate climate content is demonetized due to outdated keyword blocklists, cutting off funding to credible journalism while amplifying false narratives. This is despite research showing it drives high engagement and trust. 'Brands have invested heavily in ethical supply chains for their physical goods,' Kingaby notes. 'Now they need to apply the same rigor to their digital supply chains. Otherwise, they are inadvertently underwriting the narratives that undermine their own climate strategies.' Advertising is just one high-profile example of how disinformation creates hidden liabilities. The same dynamic, where misinformation seeps into supply chains, dashboards, ESG data, or stakeholder narratives, can quietly undermine any part of a business that relies on trust, transparency, or credible information. Companies that fail to address disinformation in their supply chains, ad spend, and public messaging are increasingly going to be seen as complicit, not cautious. Buchan is blunt saying, 'Corporations need to ask not just what narratives they're using but what actors are benefiting from the lies. Follow the incentives. That's where disinformation unravels. They need to expose the actors, what financial interests are benefiting from the lie, rather than engage in a welcome-all context debate.' Effective corporate responses must go beyond fact-checking. They must integrate emotional resonance, community-centered messaging, and strategic foresight. That includes pre-emptive communications before project launches, investments in digital literacy, and public alignment with truth-based coalitions advocating for transparency and accountability in advertising and AI. Resilience today isn't just about physical assets or infrastructure, it's also about trust, credibility, and the ability to navigate an environment shaped by misinformation. In an era where misinformation actively shapes regulation, reputation, and public perception, perhaps it's time that companies start treating information integrity as infrastructure. This begins with a clear-eyed audit of digital advertising and media spend, ensuring that corporate dollars are not inadvertently funding climate disinformation. It requires demanding full transparency from ad tech partners, not just in principle, but down to the URL level. Internally, teams across communications, legal, sustainability, and marketing must be equipped to recognize and respond to manipulated narratives that could damage credibility or derail strategy. Strategic messaging must also evolve. It's no longer enough to present facts; companies need to tell stories that resonate emotionally-grounded in what matters most to people: jobs, public health, local security, and fairness. Externally, this commitment to integrity must extend to the policy environment as well. Businesses should be at the forefront of advocating for open data, algorithmic accountability, and enforceable standards around green claims. As Buchan says, 'We need to keep people who are lying accountable, and we need to create healthy incentives, rather than the current ones that promote lying.' Kingaby adds, 'It's time for the C-suite to get its hands on the steering wheel. This is a cross-functional risk, touching marketing, legal, sustainability, and finance. The opportunity is massive, but only if leaders act.' Information integrity is no longer a communications concern. It's a strategic imperative, one central to resilience, reputation, and long-term value creation. The Legal Reckoning Is Coming The legal landscape is catching up to these information risks. In July 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion that states, and by extension companies, have obligations to reduce emissions in line with human rights and climate science. These rulings, while non-binding, signal growing global alignment around legal accountability. Dr. Bertley adds, 'In general large corporations are not going to change just because of facts. It's not a science literacy issue, it's a moral and economic one. Unless there's policy and economic pressure, change is not likely to happen.' Companies in high-emitting sectors or those misaligned in word and deed may face legal scrutiny not just for what they emit, but for whether they've enabled or financed disinformation that blocks action. This dovetails with rising fiduciary awareness. Investors and regulators alike are questioning the integrity of ESG disclosures, particularly where companies claim climate leadership while unknowingly funding oppositional messaging. Information Integrity Is Competitive Advantage Disinformation is not background noise but rather a force that distorts regulation, derails projects, destabilizes markets, and weakens corporate resilience. The cost of inaction isn't just reputational: it's also legal, operational, and existential. In a volatile, high-stakes world, the ability to act on facts, rather than fight through fiction, has become a competitive advantage. In a landscape shaped by misinformation and engineered confusion, companies that invest in information integrity aren't just doing the right thing, they're protecting their future.
Scientific American
06-08-2025
- Scientific American
NASA Faces Deep Budget Cuts—Every Living Former Science Chief of the Agency Is Sounding the Alarm
NASA faces historic budget cuts that could shutter missions and stall vital research, prompting a bipartisan outcry from all of the agency's living former science chiefs. By , Lee Billings, Fonda Mwangi, Alex Sugiura & Jeffery DelViscio Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. The White House recently proposed slashing NASA's science budget nearly in half and reducing the space agency's overall funding to just three quarters of what it received last year. When adjusted for inflation the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget would be NASA's lowest since the beginnings of the Apollo program. But these days NASA is responsible for much more than keeping up with the space race. NASA's work touches our daily lives in ways most people never realize, from the weather forecasts that help you decide what to wear to the climate data that helps farmers know when to plant their crops. The stakes are so high that every living former NASA science chief—spanning from Ronald Reagan's administration through Joe Biden's—recently signed a letter warning that these cuts could be catastrophic for American leadership in space and science. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Today we're joined by Lee Billings, a senior editor at Scientific American who covers space and physics. He spoke with one of those former NASA science chiefs about why this moment feels different—and why the scientific community is sounding the alarm. Lee, thanks so much for coming on to chat. Lee Billings: It is my pleasure, as always, Rachel. I am happy to be here, even though I wish the circumstances were a bit happier. Feltman: Right, things aren't looking great for NASA. What exactly is going on with the agency's funding? Billings: Oof, well, to sum it up: the White House has proposed that NASA's science budget be effectively cut in half, that the agency as a whole receives about only three quarters of the funding that it received in the previous fiscal year. And there's been a lot of pushback about that, of course, because if you cut NASA's science budget in half, for instance, then you're probably gonna have to shutter, cancel, decommission dozens of active missions across the solar system and in Earth orbit, and you're going to really hamstring a lot of good science, a lot of things that feed forward into other aspects of national economies and competitiveness. So the Senate and the House appropriators have been upset about this to various degrees, and they have, apparently, largely now restored a lot of that funding when you're looking at, like, the appropriations process and the back and forth between the Senate and the House. I don't think that we're entirely out of the woods yet —things are not fully finalized—but it is looking a bit brighter. And one contributor to that pushback from Senate and House appropriators might have been a letter that was recently sent to them—an open letter from all the living previous science chiefs of NASA, the associate administrators of the Science Mission Directorate of NASA. Every single one who's still alive, from serving [in] the Reagan administration all the way through the Biden administration, signed on to this letter on a bipartisan basis and said, 'We're really not cool with these proposed changes; they're potentially catastrophic for the nation and for NASA as a whole, so let's not do them.' Feltman: So this pushback is like really seriously bipartisan effort. Billings: That's correct. And, you know, these are serious people. They've had their finger on the pulse of every aspect of our civil space agency for, you know, the better part of 40 years, collectively. And none of them seemed too happy about the potential changes that these budget cuts would've wrought on NASA. Feltman: Let's talk some more about those potential changes. What are the signatories of this letter most concerned about? Billings: You know, it—it's hard to reel out a concise laundry list because the cuts [laughs] were so large, they threatened to affect almost everything. And I'm gonna read just a couple of quick excerpts. So they say that these budget cuts would, quote, 'cede U.S. leadership in space and science to China and other nations,' would 'severely damage a peerless and immensely capable engineering and scientific workforce' and would 'needlessly put to waste billions of dollars of taxpayer investments.' They would, quote, 'force the U.S. to abandon its international partners who historically contribute significantly to U.S. space science missions.' And then they spend a paragraph going into more details. And we're talking about things like winding down Hubble, even starting to wind down the James Webb Space Telescope, which only launched a few years ago. We're talking about turning off missions that are currently at Jupiter, like NASA's Juno mission. We're talking about retreating at Mars and turning off a lot of the orbiters and landers and, and rovers there. We're also talking about closing some of NASA's eyes to Earth. We're talking about cuts that would affect things like the Landsat program, which NASA manages [with] the United States Geological Survey, which, you know, looks at things like weather and precipitation and, and helps people avoid dangerous storms or know when to plant or harvest their crops—things like that. It even cuts into things like aeronautics; people forget that that—the first A in NASA stands for 'aeronautics,' I'm pretty sure, and there's lots of work that's done there, too. That's everything from developing next-generation engines and other parts of airframes that can lead to more efficient flight to, you know, software systems that can probably help air-traffic controllers and things like that. It's a full-spectrum situation. Feltman: So I know that you talked to one of the authors of this letter. Could you tell us more about who he is and why he feels so strongly about this? Billings: Yeah, his name's John Grunsfeld; sometimes he's called 'Dr. Hubble.' And he is a lot of things. In short he's an astrophysicist. He is a five-time spaceflight veteran—a former NASA astronaut who went up to fix the Hubble Space Telescope and service it, hence the 'Dr. Hubble' name. And of course, he is also a former associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate, a former chief scientist of NASA. John Grunsfeld: There's no question that science in the United States is under attack, and the president's budget request shows that NASA, you know, is not at all spared. Billings: And so when people like this have strong opinions and speak up I think it's important to listen. I really feel like some of his strongest material was when we prompted him by saying things like, you know, 'What—why is this happening right now? What upsets you about it?' And he had some pretty sharp words for, you know, these proposals and, and the Trump administration. He threw some sharp elbows. Grunsfeld: You know, I can only speculate that this is part of a deliberate attempt to dumb down America. People who are poorly educated are much more easily manipulated than people who have strong critical-thinking skills. Billings: The stuff he said there, it's the kind of thing where this isn't some sign-toting hippie doing a protest in the street. Like, this guy—that was the other thing that he said that I thought was really good: when I challenged him directly, I was like, 'You know, you can look through your socials and your history and I can see that, you know, you were a supporter of Kamala Harris. There's gonna be this pushback on you—that you're just a partisan hack and you're compromised by your bias—and how would you respond to that?' And he answered me very clearly: talking about his resume, talking about his experience at NASA, talking about his spaceflights and how he put his life on the line for the nation to upgrade and service and preserve one of our most cherished and enduring iconic national resources, the Hubble Space Telescope. And he talked about how he'd worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past. And, you know, I—to me that really resonated because, like, this is—he's not the kind of person who makes a lot of headlines with a lot of splashy talk, right? But when he does talk in a concerted way that's trying to get attention, I do think it's worth listening. Feltman: Yeah, and what is he most concerned about? Billings: So the two that he really highlighted for me when, when we spoke, the first was the cuts to astrophysics. Grunsfeld: I'm an astrophysicist, so that actually has me seriously depressed. There's especially one cut, which is eliminating the high-altitude balloon program, which—I have to say, having run NASA Science—is probably the most efficient and productive program in all of NASA and in all of the federal government because it always has a tiny budget and it does tremendous science. Billings: And it seems to be one of the areas where NASA and, by proxy, the United States is really in a pole position. We're really leading the world in a lot of domains of astrophysics in terms of building telescopes to see further and more clearly deeper out into the cosmos, and he definitely thinks that that is at risk. And the other one that he pointed out has—it hits a little closer to home. Grunsfeld: Earth science: part of NASA. And one of the things we know is that the Earth as a system is incredibly complex, and it's that view from space—not only, you know, seeing the whole Earth with our fleet of satellites but also over a long period of time—that allows us to develop models to accurately predict what the future will be. Billings: The planet's warming, and that's not a partisan appraisal—that's just a fact. And we need to know how that works. And we need to know how it's cascading through the Earth's system to affect everything from precipitation patterns to extreme weather events, so on and so forth—sea-level rise, lots of things. So there's lots of areas where NASA's work, especially its observations of our home planet, really do touch people's lives, everyday people's lives, in, in lots of subtle ways. Feltman: Of course NASA has faced potential budget cuts before. So, what does John say is different about this? Why did he and the rest of the folks who signed feel the need to speak out now? Billings: One thing that's indisputable is: if you look at these proposed budget cuts and you look at NASA's funding over time, across the entirety of its nearly 70-year history, the budget cuts, if they went through, would be bringing NASA to its lowest state, its lowest budgetary state, since before the [beginnings of the] Apollo program—since, really, its founding. So that's pretty historic. And of course, NASA is doing a lot more with its money than it did back in the Apollo days. You know, back then it was all about a moonshot and beating the Soviet Union in this new 'High Frontier,' and it was a very focused, almost singular goal. Now NASA's portfolio is vast. If you look at all the different things it's doing and all the different types of science that it supports, all the different technology development that it supports, all the different aspects of our lives that these things filter into, it's just grown so much. So we're pairing a historically low budget with an immensely expanded portfolio of responsibilities, obligations and opportunities, and I think it's that combination that really set the alarm bells off and that really brought not just John Grunsfeld to the table to write this letter but also all of his predecessors within NASA's Science Mission Directorate. Feltman: It makes sense that this former NASA head is really concerned about this stuff. But how could it impact our listeners? Billings: Woo, well, I think that our listeners should care for many different reasons, and, and it kind of depends upon one's point of view. If you're really enthused and excited about just fundamentally expanding the frontiers of our knowledge about the universe, right, if you are captivated and awestruck by pretty pictures from space telescopes and other worldly vistas from interplanetary spacecraft, you should be concerned about that window closing on the universe. And again, we've been at the forefront. Maybe you're very, very, very patriotic and you're always first to start chanting 'USA!' at any public event. Well, in that case maybe you don't care so much about pretty pictures from space telescopes and rovers on Mars looking for signs of life, but maybe you just want the U.S. to be the best, right? And if these sorts of budget cuts go through, then it's very hard to see how we're still gonna be the best in these domains, instead of some other competitor nations, particularly China. China's rapid rise in space science and exploration and spaceflight is something that many people have flagged, obviously, and that John Grunsfeld also noted when we spoke, and they are going full bore. They have a space station up there right now. They are going to be launching almost, like, a Hubble Space Telescope–like orbital observatory that's gonna hang out near their space station for servicing in [the] coming years. They are probably going to pull off the first successful Mars sample return mission before NASA and the European Space Agency, its key partner, will manage to retrieve a bunch of samples that they already have stored there on Mars. You know, attracting the best and the brightest to our shores from all across the world, because who wouldn't want to work on a mission to land people on Mars? Who wouldn't wanna work on a mission to try to find life on some distant exoplanet? Those things are fundamentally attractive and cool to a lot of people—again, the best and the brightest—and we want to have them here, I think. There's also the direct-utility angle of people wanting to know if it's gonna be rainy or sunny tomorrow, what they need to wear if they're going out to work: Should they wear a light sweater, or should they, you know, wear seersucker because it's gonna be 90 percent humidity? Is there gonna be a big squall or hurricane that might blow in? Those things depend on forecasts, which are based on data that, to some degree, comes from NASA assets—NASA satellites, NASA computers crunching the numbers, all that stuff. So Earth observations have a very strong, direct influence on our daily lives, whether we really recognize it or not, and it's threatened by these sorts of budget cuts. Feltman: Lee, thank you so much for coming on to chat. Billings: Rachel, it is always my pleasure. Again, I wish the circumstances were a little better, but hey, hope springs eternal. Feltman: That's all for today's episode. We'll be back on Friday to talk to a meteorologist who's made his way to Washington. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news. For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!
