The U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA), which was finalized in 2023 and serves as the primary tool for predicting the impacts of rising temperatures, is now at risk of being discontinued due to a series of setbacks, as highlighted in the above summary. This report, produced by scientists and experts in the U.S., provides crucial information to Congress and other stakeholders regarding how climate change affects various sectors of the economy. However, the findings from the past six assessments have already pressed the envelope, leaving it daunting for the next document.
The administration’s recent decision to dismiss over 500 scientists and experts, according to the email received by the authors of the sixth assessment, marked a significant blow to their efforts. This move underscores the administration’s belief in the urgency of addressing climate change while acknowledging the efforts of those involved. Some experts, however, expressed concerns, fearing that this dismissal would effectively terminate the assessment process. Jesse Keenan, who is a co-author of the last NCA, expressed particular fatalism, stating that losing all participants to the assessment would “terminate the assessment.” The White House did not respond to immediate comments, leaving the outcome of this decision up in the air.
The challenges faced by the administration in continuing the assessment process are well-documented. NASA canceled a key contract with ICF International, a firm providing critical assistance to the Global Change Research Program, underscoring the administration’s efforts to streamline the process. Additionally, the administration has faced considerable hurdles in complying with the reports’ findings. The NAOMI, the Office of Management and Budget, has been criticized for its “climate alarmism,” as its largest research division is interpreted as actively documenting alarmist climate science.
WS Joel wrote about the administration’s failure to oppose the report effectively, calling it a blunder that “would more effectively,” if not truly, reshape the research and management of climate change. President Trump’s popularity regarding climate change, coupled with previously published conclusions in 2018, likely contribute to the administration’s decision to reverse the process.
While many scientists and policymakers trust in the NCA’s findings, it also raises significant concerns about its relevance in mid-2024. As state and local leaders, as well as private sector entities, rely heavily on this report to guide climate action, its collapse could have far-reaching consequences. Decision-makers forced to reference the assessment may struggle to adapt to the changing climate context if they continue to use outdated information. This reliance on a single, long-edged report on climate change could erode public trust and put Democrats and their opponents at odds with their science community.
The next NCA is seen by many in the U.S. as a=q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q/q, with disagreementsab/sw(all senators in a heated, costly showdown with Scientifically such aresizeable Edmundo S nailed a scientificvisualizer who)}, if they can’t take that test on the frontalo nocturnal torturer must投诉혹емсяasin àsua f内心，despairyedBy 日常经常在办公室呼喊“换个地方干”，”as a former science writer explaining that scientific progress requires_constantly intellectualDepth and resilience, as in science itself! Similarly, the Federal Reserve, in its recent essay in the quarterly Outlook, said that the situation here is different, with the Federal Reserve voicing a stronger stance than others.
In conclusion, the fate of the National Climate Assessment hinges not only on the续 Duty of responsible leadership but also on the collective will of state and policy makers to address the pressing issue of climate change. Today’s administration’s decision is just the latest in a lengthy chain of setbacks for this critical assessment project. However, it still needs to proceed to reassure the scientific and policy communities of its relevance and utility in the face of progress. Moving forward will be a question of whether the same assessment process can navigate the next generation of climate experts while keeping the momentum of progress alive.
