5 hours ago
2
Some politicians go whichever way the wind blows. Not, however, the US’s esteemed leader, Donald Trump. He is such a force of nature that he can dictate the direction of the wind. During his first term, he suggested “nuking hurricanes” to stop them from hitting the country. A few weeks after that, Trump seemed to think he could alter the course of Hurricane Dorian with a black marker, scribbling over an official map to change its anticipated trajectory in an incident now known as Sharpiegate. Weirdly, Dorian did not end up following Trump’s orders. Hurricanes can be uncooperative like that.
Six weeks into Trump’s second term, the president hasn’t bombed any hurricanes, but he has nuked the US’s weather-forecasting capabilities. Last week, hundreds of workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the US’s pre-eminent climate research agency, were abruptly fired.
Experts and lawmakers have warned that the ramifications could be wide-ranging and deadly. “Ships will not be able to safely navigate through our waterways. Farmers will not have the data they need to manage their crops,” Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington, said in a statement. “This action is a direct hit to our economy, because Noaa’s specialised workforce provides products and services that support more than a third of the nation’s GDP.”
Doesn’t sound ideal, does it? I know this is a bit like asking why water is wet, but why is the Trump-Musk administration being so reckless? Why are they waging war on the weather?
Partly because someone stands to get rich from of all this, one imagines. The Noaa cuts may be shocking, but they weren’t surprising. Republicans have long been pushing to limit the government’s role in weather forecasting in order to privatise large sections of it. This plan was clearly laid out in Project 2025, a blueprint for the Trump administration, which recommended that the National Weather Service, run by Noaa, should “fully commercialize its forecasting operations” and focus on providing data to private companies.
There is always money to be made from dismantling government services. Elon Musk’s businesses have received at least $38bn (£30bn) in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits, according to a Washington Post analysis. It certainly wouldn’t be shocking if Musk’s vast Starlink satellite network – which Dutch meteorologists once warned was interfering with satellite measurements that are indispensable for accurate weather forecasts – suddenly got some lucrative weather-related government contracts.
Privatisation of a public good isn’t all bad news, though: we can probably expect exciting innovation. Subscription-based disaster services, perhaps. For just $9.99 a month, you can access exclusive information about whether a hurricane or wildfire is heading to your neighbourhood! Opt for the $999 a month plan and get private firefighters dispatched to your door while the poor watch their homes burn!
Of course, Trump’s war on the weather isn’t just about money; it’s also about science denialism. Project 2025 claims that Noaa should be dismantled because it is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry”. If we get rid of data about the climate crisis, then it’s bound to go away, isn’t it? Remember when Trump advocated a similar approach to Covid? He said: “If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any.” Hard to argue with toddler logic.
Ultimately, however, the attacks on Noaa show that even the weather has been swept up in the culture wars. It used to be a safe topic, something you could chat about with strangers. Now, simply providing context to weather reports can get people very heated indeed. For example, during the summer 2022 heatwave in the UK, when temperatures reached record highs of 40.3C, weather forecasters such as Laura Tobin found themselves getting harassed for linking the heatwave to the climate crisis.
This abuse is part of a trend. Meteorologists around the world have been subjected to increasing harassment. This is partly, I suspect, because, deep down, even the science deniers are fearful. There is an apt tweet about the climate crisis that pops up a lot: “Climate change will manifest as a series of disasters viewed through phones with footage that gets closer and closer to where you live until you’re the one filming it.” What used to seem abstract and remote is now steadily encroaching on all our lives – even those of people living in places once considered climate havens. Trump can declare war on the weather all he likes, but it’s become alarmingly clear that this is a war that no one will win.
