[fancyfredbot]

I understand the present US administration would want to stop funding this, and that they have the power to do so.

I don't understand how that has led to the sensor network being dismantled. Surely it would have been cheaper to leave it in place and stop maintaining it?

[adithyareddy]

It's not about the cost, it's about ideology. Same reason they've paid nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds to energy developers to abandon offshore wind farm projects. The point isn't to save money, it's to stop green energy projects, which is an ideological goal. If their decisions don't make sense to you it's because you're not viewing them through their ideological lens.

[fancyfredbot]

The way I thought it worked was that congress would set a budget and scientists would decide how to spend it.

Perhaps naively I thought these scientists would want to do science and would be unwilling to steer funds away from whichever projects they liked in order to fund the removal of some sensors.

I guess maybe the scientists who make these decisions are also partisan and happy to do as the administration asks.

[gwerbin]

It's not an ideological goal, it's a profit goal. Ideology is just part of the propaganda engine. Isn't it funny how conservatism always seems to benefit big business? Have you ever noticed how quiet conservative politicians get when some supposedly conservative ideology ends up being bad for big business?

[throwarayes]

“Have the power”

They have power, but it’s not actually legal. Congress has mandated funds for this array, the administration wants to cripple it beyond repair before any legal action can catch up.

[gwerbin]

Congress could stop it right now if they wanted to. They don't want to stop it. Authoritarian government requires a strong executive and a weak legislature.

[greycol]

An apologist would argue that leaving the sensors to degrade and leach into the environment or for ones with buoyant parts to possibly break free and endanger seagoers is not better than deconstruction.

The malicious belief would be that it's to ensure that the system can't be easily reactivated and that a non-profit couldn't offer to take over the running costs, there's also the possible "benefit" of redirecting funding that has already been allocated for marine science that would be harder to not dispense rather than arguably use it for this.

[xboxnolifes]

You're looking at it from the lens of cost to government, but ignoring the lens if cost/profit for companies. Government spending isnt real spending to them, because its not their money. Government spending is only bad when if means they (the individuals) would profit less.

[warkdarrior]

If you destroy the sensor network now, it is that much more expensive for a future administration to rebuild from scratch.