Lawsuit Targets Trump Administration’s Plan to Dismantle Major Climate Research Institute in America

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), which manages the largest federal climate research center in the U.S., has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

View the lawsuit. This legal action disputes the administration’s decision to dismantle NCAR, alleging a “systematic campaign of punishment and coercion” against Colorado amidst ongoing tensions between President Donald Trump and Governor Jared Polis.

The report submitted by UCAR, a leading non-profit organization in climate science and weather modeling based in Boulder, Colorado, follows the Trump administration’s announcement in December about plans to dismantle the research center.

The lawsuit claims that “UCAR and NCAR are collateral damage” in this broader conflict.

The disagreement between Trump and Polis arises from concerns regarding mail-in voting in Colorado and the prosecution of a county clerk convicted of tampering with election equipment during the 2020 presidential election. According to the complaint, Trump pressured Polis to release the clerk while banning mail-in voting.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado, the lawsuit details a purported “retaliatory campaign” targeting NCAR by multiple federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

So far, three named federal agencies have not provided comments regarding the lawsuit, except for the NSF, which stated it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

Additionally, Colorado is pursuing legal actions related to the alleged campaign of retribution against the state.

The lawsuit contends that the Trump administration’s decision to relocate the U.S. Space Command, cut $109 million in transportation funding, and impose new requirements on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is part of a punitive strategy against Colorado.

District judges have only ruled on one matter in this case concerning SNAP. The administration argued that there was sufficient fraud in Colorado to necessitate a pilot program; however, a district judge ruled in favor of the state by issuing a preliminary injunction, which outlined the reasons in a court order.

UCAR’s complaint shares similar allegations against the federal government, claiming that a “gag order” was issued to silence NCAR employees regarding the reorganization. It also points to the termination of a multimillion-dollar climate adaptation research contract and new unlawful reporting requirements imposed on NCAR and UCAR. Furthermore, the complaint details attempts to remove the center’s supercomputing facility from UCAR’s administration.

The complaint states, “The agency’s ultimate goal is the complete destruction of NCAR,” referencing a January NSF announcement about restructuring the agency while seeking public proposals for new uses for NCAR’s Boulder campus, including various public or private uses.

The allegations within the complaint argue that recent federal actions contravene the Administrative Procedure Act and request the court to halt specific lawsuits, such as the relocation of NCAR’s supercomputing facility and cancellation of NOAA grants.

UCAR and NCAR collectively employ around 1,400 scientists, engineers, and support personnel focusing on key areas like hurricane forecasting, wildfire monitoring, weather predictions, and space weather research. NCAR hosts advanced supercomputers essential for complex climate modeling tasks.

In a statement on their website, UCAR emphasized that the actions taken by the federal agencies pose significant threats to national security, public safety, and economic stability and jeopardize the U.S.’s leadership role in climate and weather forecasting.

UCAR has stated that it will refrain from further comments until the lawsuit is resolved.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

The Trump Administration’s Push for Underwater Mining: What Are the Implications?

Life beneath the Pacific Ocean is characterized by slowness, darkness, and tranquility. Unusual creatures shine and glimmer, while oxygen seeps mysteriously through rugged mineral rocks. The residents of these deep waters seldom interfere with one another.

“This area hosts an extraordinary form of life,” noted Bethany Orcutt, a geobiologist at the Bigelow Institute for Marine Science.

Given the harsh conditions, conducting deep-sea research is both challenging and infrequent due to its high costs.

On Thursday, President Trump endorsed a Presidential Order aimed at permitting industrial mining in underwater areas for the first time. Scientists have voiced strong concerns that such mining could irreversibly damage deep-sea ecosystems before their value and functions are fully understood.

Undersea mining can target three types of metal-rich sediments: nodules, crusts, and mounds, with current focus on nodules. Nodules are particularly valuable as they contain metals essential for the production of electronic devices, advanced weaponry, electric vehicle batteries, and other technologies crucial for human advancement. Nodules are also the simplest type of underwater mineral deposits to extract.

Economically viable nodules have been forming over millions of years, resting on the seabed indefinitely. They develop when small pieces of material, such as shark teeth, become embedded in the seabed. Minerals containing iron, manganese, and other metals gradually accumulate, resembling snowmen. Some can grow as large as grapefruit.

Life also thrives among these nodules. Microbial organisms, invertebrates, corals, and sponges inhabit them.

Lisa Levin, an oceanographer at the Institute of Oceanography, states that approximately half of the known marine life inhabiting the vast Abyssal Plains exists in these nodules. However, she explained, “I am unsure about the distribution of these species and whether individuals from mined sites can recolonize other areas.” “That’s a significant unknown.”

Two primary methods have been developed for harvesting nodules. One resembles a claw that drags along the seabed collecting nodules, while the other acts as a vacuum used in underwater operations.

In both methods, nodules are lifted to surface ships several miles above the seabed, with any remaining water, rocks, and debris released back into the sea.

Both approaches are invasive and can harm the underwater habitat itself. The extraction of nodules equates to the removal of essential ecosystem components, according to scientific consensus.

Mining operations introduce light and sound pollution, affecting not only the seabed but also the sea surface around the extraction vessels.

A major concern is the sediment plume generated by mining activities, described by Jeffrey Drazen, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, as “the clearest seawater” at about 1,000 meters, which contributes to obscured environments. Sediment plumes can travel significant distances and harm marine life unpredictably.

The sediment can suffocate shrimp and sponge-like fish, obstructing filter feeders. It can also block essential light, impacting lantern fishes and making it difficult for them to find mates or prey. Furthermore, it may lead to contamination of seafood for human consumption.

“What are the chances of contaminating food supplies?” Dr. Drazen questioned. He expressed a desire for answers regarding this issue before mining commences, as the information is currently lacking.

The mining industry claims to be adopting a sustainable and environmentally responsible approach to deep-sea mining through research and collaboration with the scientific community.

Their research includes fundamental studies in seabed geology, biology, and chemistry, documenting thousands of species and providing valuable imagery and footage from the deep sea. Dr. Drazen noted that interest in undersea mining could promote research efforts that might otherwise be hard to fund.

Initial tests of recovery equipment have revealed some insights into the anticipated effects related to sediment plumes, yet modeling is limited in forecasting outcomes at a commercial scale.

Impossible Metals, a California-based underwater mining firm, utilizes artificial intelligence to create a transport container-sized underwater robot designed to harvest large, free-living nodules. In 2022, the Metals Company, a Canadian deep-sea mining entity, extracted approximately 3,000 tons of nodules from the ocean floor and gathered data regarding the sediment plume generated during the process.

In March, the Metals Company indicated plans to bypass international regulatory bodies associated with the United Nations overseeing submarine mining, instead seeking authorization through NOAA.

During an interview on Thursday, CEO Gerald Baron stated that the executive order “does not serve as a shortcut” for previous environmental assessments, emphasizing that the company has “conducted over a decade of environmental research.”

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly affirmed that the United States would adhere to two domestic laws governing deep-sea exploration and commercial endeavors within U.S. waters. “Both laws mandate extensive environmental impact assessments and compliance with stringent environmental standards,” she noted.

Many scientists harbor skepticism regarding the well-understood environmental consequences of underwater mining, as viable predictions about long-term results remain elusive.

Disturbing the base of the food chain can have cascading effects on the entire marine ecosystem. For instance, if sediments dilute the food supply for plankton, they could face starvation due to an inability to extract sufficient organic matter from the clouds of sea dust.

Small plankton serve as a fundamental food source, whether directly or indirectly, for nearly every marine organism, including whales.

Understanding potential impacts poses challenges due to the slow life processes at the seabed. Deep-sea fish can live for hundreds of years, while corals can endure for millennia.

“The timeline of life here is significantly different,” Dr. Levin explained. “It raises numerous uncertainties regarding responses to environmental disturbances.” Conducting 500-year experiments to ascertain whether these ecosystems can recover or adapt is a daunting task for humans.

Additionally, there’s no assurance that damaged habitats will be restored or that harm to the seabed will be mitigated. Unlike terrestrial mining, “a strategy for deep-sea mining is absent,” Dr. Oucht remarked. “There is currently no scientific evidence supporting the restoration of ecosystems post-damage.”

Some experts have raised concerns about the necessity of undersea mining, arguing that land-based mining could meet the growing metal demands.

Proponents of deep-sea mining assert that the environmental or carbon footprint is less significant compared to traditional mining practices for those same minerals.

“To date, there has been no actual recovery of minerals,” stated Amy Gartman, a marine researcher leading the U.S. Geological Survey’s Undersea Minerals Team, referring to commercial-scale mining. “We are comparing theoretical scenarios with actual land mining methods. Once someone initiates extraction in any of these ventures, we will gain a clearer understanding.”

Eric Lipton Reports of contributions.

Source: www.nytimes.com