Richard Spinrad: Climate disaster map does not align with political map
Warming marine temperatures are a phenomenon that Richard Spinrad, head of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), has been observing since the 1970s.
Speaking during a recent visit to London, to coincide with the Oceanology International conference, he addressed the question of whether a change in the White House would affect the work of the agency he runs.
Noaa has received more than $6bn in funding from two major pieces of US legislation under the Joe Biden presidency. However, Spinrad acknowledged that this could be rescinded, despite his conviction that the agency’s services are needed more than ever in a time of climate change.
This is an edited transcript of a briefing by Spinrad at the US embassy in London, involving Emiliya Mychasuk, the FT climate editor.
Richard Spinrad: Right now, obviously, we think this is a critical time for the kind of work that we do. I would argue that our mission at Noaa is, and has never been more, urgent.
When I came back to the agency some three years ago, I said, we’re going to focus on climate, and its impact on lives, lifestyles and livelihoods, and — specifically — to ensure that we’re providing an authoritative source of federal information for decision makers.
The second pillar [of our mission] was balancing environmental stewardship and economic development. My agency actually sits in the Department of Commerce, and oftentimes there’s been a question as to whether we can effectively be good stewards of the environment and also stimulate economic development. I believe the burgeoning climate services industry is one that we have an obligation, a responsibility, and a capability to support.
And the third area is one that I really frame as equity — both in terms of how we are organising and operating as an agency, but also in terms of the delivery of our products and services. I mean things like data models, predictions, forecasts, weather watches, weather warnings. We’re providing all the data for those products and services, in a more equitable fashion than we ever have before.
As you know, in the United States, a lot of our population is not within 50 miles of the coastline. But I think there’s a recognition, now, that the oceans play a very important role in affecting climate that thereby affects the agricultural industry, the energy industry, the commerce industry, transportation industry.
In that respect, I consider oceans — in many regards — to be, if you will, the lifeblood of the new blue economy, an economy that’s based on information and what I like to call environmental intelligence. [Oceans are] a very accurate, authoritative characterisation of how the Earth system is changing, that people make critical decisions, economic decisions about, as well as [community and] personal decisions.
[These are] decisions about where industries may go in the future. How is the airline industry, for example, accommodating changes [in the Earth system] that we expect in the next season? And the next year? The next decade?
[The agency’s] missions are not inherently political by any means. They are affecting all aspects of security. [Not only] national security, homeland security, but they also address food security, energy security, water security, economic security.
These are not issues that need to be addressed on a political schedule. These are issues that every American citizen, industry and community assumes their taxes will support — regardless of the administration.
Emiliya Mychasuk: Is the funding that comes [to Noaa] through the [Biden administration landmark] Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act baked in?
RS: No, it’s not. And there have been some threats of rescission of some of those funds [if there is a new administration in the White House]. Not all of them are subject to rescission, [though] arguably Congress has the right to rescind appropriations at any time. There have been rumblings about potentially pulling back some of those resources.
But, quite honestly, I think we’re doing an effective job not only in planning for the expenditure of those resources, but also in making sure that those who decide on any potential rescission decisions understand the impacts of doing that — that these dollars are being spent at the local level, to support communities and industries.
I think we’ve effectively demonstrated the value. So I’m not terribly concerned about rescission, but I recognise that is an option.
EM: In terms of the products you are talking about working with various industries on — would that mean turning some of the open source data into paid-for products?
RS: None of the data that we are acquiring, and using, in our processes would be paid-for products. Well, I should say, not paid for twice. They are already paid for with tax dollars. But, certainly, those data that we acquire and that we generate are publicly available.
The question that you asked, though, it does raise a negotiation point in contracting with data providers. What are their expectations with regard to those bits of data we might collect from them as far as dissemination?
That ends up being an important point of negotiation, and it is specific to each individual contract. Some of them stipulate there’s a time delay before those data can be released — so they can be used for research projects down the line, but perhaps not immediately for operational purposes. But it’s going to be dependent on which data, which company and which time.
EM: Does Noaa get involved in some of the political or policy discussions on issues such as deep sea mining and geoengineering [a contested technology that involves manipulating the weather to fight climate change]?
RS: Noaa is a science-based organisation, and our purpose is to provide technical and scientific guidance on these things.
So, on issues like carbon dioxide reduction — and I specifically focus on the marine example [of carbon dioxide] — we lead the technical assessment [that guides policy decisions]. What observations are needed? What are the impacts of any efforts associated with things like ocean fertilisation [adding iron to the ocean to stimulate marine growth to absorb CO₂] or ocean colonisation [building human settlements on the ocean’s surface]?
We also have the responsibility for developing the predictions. So, ‘if we were to do this, what are the downstream impacts on atmospheric carbon?’
And, then, we also have a responsibility for supporting decisions [by providing research to government decision makers].
And that gets to your question about policy. I consider policy development a decision process. We are not the policy developers in these areas. Other agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, have responsibility for developing regulatory statutes.
But we contribute to that same thing on deep sea mining. We are serving as a subject matter expert. [For example], if technique X is applied, what do we think the impacts on the oceans, on flora and fauna might be?
At the end of the day, [however] it won’t be Noaa that establishes and writes the policy on something like deep sea mining.
EM: Scientists have been increasing their levels of alarm about warming of the oceans. Is that something that Noaa specifically has teams devoted to studying?
RS: Very much so. I won’t say that’s a hot subject . . . but it is. It is a very important issue for us, because that drives so much.
First of all, it’s an indicator of climate change: overall warming of the oceans. Second of all, it has dramatic impacts on the ecosystems — corals being, probably, one of the most obvious. Third of all, it is a major factor associated with things like the formation of hurricanes and tropical cyclones.
So, even right now . . . we’re looking at the central Atlantic, which is warmer than it ever has been . . . We may [see the impact of La Niña, a weather cycle that results in a cooling of the Pacific Ocean currents] here later this year — what does that mean for hurricane season?
As a scientist, I can tell you I think these factors all add up to having rather dramatic impacts on major storms, on ecosystems, on any number of activities.
What’s happening, for example, to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation? That’s what is commonly called the conveyor belt circulation. And there’s a lot of concern right now as to whether, because of the heating and some other factors, the air circulation may actually be slowing. What is the consequence of that?
The oceans, by virtue of being 70 per cent of the surface of the globe, represent a critical factor in our being able to support what we call ‘being a climate ready nation’.
[This includes] our ability to tell just about anybody in the US who has any interest in understanding what the future may be, what heating of the oceans, heating of the land, mass changes in the jet stream, changes in overall weather patterns will mean for their lives, livelihoods and lifestyles.
We’re seeing that — typically, historically — hurricane season started on June 1 and ended at the end of November. And, now, if you look at the record, we are seeing certainly tropical cyclones forming earlier than June 1, and we’re seeing systems extending well beyond the end of November. So that hurricane season has certainly become longer both on the front and the back.
EM: Inevitably, agencies need to be resilient to political change as much as to climate change. Is there enough resilience in your partnerships for data collection and monitoring to continue at the level of the past three years?
RS: Noaa is roughly a $7bn a year agency. If I look at the requirements for everything that we do, I could justify probably twice as much in terms of an investment. So I think the current level of investment is easily defensible — under any administration.
The main point, though, is that building support across the electorate has been a critical aspect of what we do.
I’ll use as an example Alaska, where there are two Republican senators — so, arguably, a very conservative electorate. They feel the impacts of climate change in the fires that they’re seeing in the interior of the state. They’re feeling the impacts of climate change and having to move communities from the coasts, on Bering Sea. They’re feeling the effects of climate change in terms of salmon availability, or lack of availability, in the fishing and fishing villages.
And I could go to an equally, liberal electorate and say they’re also feeling the impacts. They’re certainly feeling it in their pocketbook.
We’re all paying for the effects of fires that are now hitting. We saw $28bn [of] disasters in the United States last year — more than we’ve ever seen before. We’re all paying for that. I’m paying for that when I pay my insurance.
Consequently, I think the American public is getting it, understanding it. I do tend to show that map of the billion dollar disasters, and it does not align with the political map in any way.
So I feel that we’re in a very defensible position with regard to the value of what we do.
Most importantly, I think the American public is eager to defend that. Across the American public — it is six cents per citizen, per day to have all of this stuff I’ve been talking about. That’s not a big deal in terms of the economy. So I think they realise they’re getting good value for the investment. And that’s going to be regardless of who was in charge.
Climate Capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here.
Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Find out more about our science-based targets here