Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
Is there any reason why this needs to be a taxpayer subsidized organization?
I realize it's not quite the same thing, but there are already corporations who pay private meteorologists for their services.
World or not be better to allow corporate America to pay for these types of services and free up those dollars for other things?
Those meteorologists get basically all their data from NOAA. They aren’t running the weather satellites and radars and they definitely aren’t flying planes into the eyes of hurricanes to measure the wind speed. The weather app on your iPhone uses data that ultimately comes from the NOAA.
The budget for NOAA (that has the National weather service, the hurricane center, etc.) was $6.35 billion in 2023 and their budget request this year is $6.6 billion. To compare, we just gave Israel, a rich country, (yet another) $8.7 billion aid package. Basically everything the government does is a rounding error on defense ^1^, Medicaid, and Medicare. NOAA might be the best value-for-money we spend.
^1^ Keep in mind, the $800bn plus DoD budget is only a part of defense spending. The Department of Energy manages the nuclear weapons, Veterans Affairs is its own department. The Department of Homeland Security has the intelligence agencies, border patrol, etc. Total defense spending is well past $1 trillion no matter how you want to count it.
"Is there any reason why this needs to be a taxpayer subsidized organization?"
Public safety? Is that a good enough reason? We should be subsiding more things that are in the public interest - programs that benefit the public should never be run by for-profit corporations.
We should be subsiding more things that are in the public interest
Very much agreed! But...
programs that benefit the public should never be run by for-profit corporations.
I wouldn't go that far. In fact, I would actually go so far as to say kind of the opposite: that all "corporations," including "for-profit" ones, should be required to act in the public interest, as originally intended, and that any organization that doesn't want to be subject to those sorts of conditions is perfectly free to remain a full-liability general partnership instead of incorporating. Incorporation is a privilege intended to be granted in exchange for public benefit, and we need to get back to that instead of continuing to let the courts treat it as an entitlement.
I get your point, but I have trouble understanding how acting in the public interest and charging over operating costs can be compatible, especially in public service areas like hospitals/medicine and education.
Did you read the article I linked?
Here's the part that should've answered your question:
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
- Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
- Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
"Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end."
Right, that's the part I take issue with. Why is there a profit on a public good?
I agree with all of the restrictions in place, but those have gotten weaker over time, when they should've gotten more restrictive. The problem with allowing them to profit is that over time, the profit gives them more bargaining power which allows them to erode the oversight and avoid all consequences for breaking the regulations.
I realize it’s not quite the same thing, but there are already corporations who pay private meteorologists for their services.
Short answer: no, there really aren't.
Long answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGn9T37eR8
"Corporate meterologists" basically just put pretty graphics on top of NOAA forecasts.
Those corporations don't want data proving man made climate change. That's why they want to break it up.
What is a private meteorologist, and how do you think they get their data?
Bob at News Channel 9 doesn't have his own multi satellite system.
This is the most unironically American take I have ever seen congratulations
I AGREE! I'm OK paying ~~$5~~ ~~$15~~ ~~$500~~ $5000 a month for Lifesaving Information!
I mean $10000. They raised prices AGAIN!
I kind of like having weather reports that aren't beholden to corporation funding. Too much fuckery bound to happen.
You can get a weather forecast for the low low price of 89.99 for the week.