[nickff]

This may be a controversial view, but I don't think we should trust the actor in charge of regulating and limiting emissions with its own supervision. The Federal Government has a plethora of agencies which regulate pollution and energy usage; how can we trust either its legislative or executive branch to ensure that their creations are effective or efficient?

To that end, I hope the Trump administration's actions cause independent data collection and analysis by activists and independent scientists.

[turtlebits]

Who is going to pay for the data collection? If we can't trust the government, what are we paying taxes for?

[alphawhisky]

This was my thought on the issue as well. How does moving it to private companies benefit anyone except the companies (who can now legally price gouge)? This is a centralized service, and just like healthcare, the numbers show that integrity goes out the window once financialized.

[jjordan]

To stay out of jail, mostly.

[dnautics]

do you care about climate data? then pay. or else you dont actually care enough to be inconvenienced. put up or shut up. i care, so I'll start. will make a $15 donation (as soon as i figure out how)

[cogman10]

Great, and through your effort you can raise a total of 100, maybe even 1000 dollars.

Meanwhile while you are willing to give $15 for good data, Koch is willing to spend $15 million for a guy with a degree in fine arts to tell us he's a scientist and actually CO2 is super healthy and awesome.

We elect officials and tax not just for the climate data most people will care about, but also for random things like sewage data that people might not be thinking about but is also important to public health. Trying to piecemeal fund all these studies and turning science into a game of advertising and begging for causes will put us right back into the dark ages where only the absurdly wealthy could engage in any sort of scientific research.

[dnautics]

is there like a list of things that government is responsible for, or is it just vibes? if not, how is that not rife for abuse?

> Trying to piecemeal fund all these studies and turning science into a game of advertising and begging for causes will put us right back into the dark ages where only the absurdly wealthy could engage in any sort of scientific research.

it was already the case, even with tons of funding. (in case you don't know, i have a phd in chemical biology)

[cogman10]

> is there like a list of things that government is responsible for

Why yes, there is. Here's an example of that list for the federal government [1]. States and cities also have similar lists though they may not be as accessible to the general public (a problem to be sure).

> or is it just vibes? if not, how is that not rife for abuse?

Not really vibes, it's spelt out in statute. In some cases that responsibility can be pretty wide and in all cases the president can chose heads of office that don't care to or ignore the duties of those statutes. The remedy if you feel like that's happening too much is voting.

> how is that not rife for abuse?

Abuse can certainly happen. However, the US does have some inordinate amounts of oversight over federally ran programs precisely because a lot of people worry about abuses. Where the abuse tends to happen is when the US is funding private institutions rather than running the programs themselves.

I have family that currently works for the US gov writing software. As they tell it, it takes 3 weeks to bring in a new version of a library due to the mandatory review process in the statutes. Meanwhile, they can hire a contractor who can use any library they like (but also who can bill whatever they like and are often friends with senators).

> it was already the case, even with tons of funding. (in case you don't know, i have a phd in chemical biology)

It used to be much more open ended. It has, however gotten worse and it's about to get much worse. Exactly because of concerns for abuse and waste. The system from clinton to trump wasn't great but it was somewhat functional. We are about to enter a new era, however, where funding for grants can be axed while the research is in flight if the administration decides that they don't like what's being researched. That's the abuse and waste I'm actually worried about.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

[dnautics]

> We are about to enter a new era, however, where funding for grants can be axed while the research is in flight if the administration decides that they don't like what's being researched

if you care about science not being political, dont use political means to obtain your science. simple as. youre just trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[ryandrake]

Can we do the same thing for military funding? Default its budget to zero, and if anyone cares, let them donate a few bucks?

[dnautics]

update: it turns out the parent org hasn't set up donations for this sub org, so i donated to climate action instead (also under the parent org)

[turtlebits]

I care that the data is out there and helps with weather forecasting. My taxes pay for that.

Do you care about roads, schools, fire stations and police too? Please donate to those please.

[sampli]

The only reason we have good weather data is because the government maintains stations in remote places all over the country. Who else would maintain that?

[imoverclocked]

> stations in remote places all over the country

s/country/world/

There are many large projects to collect this information ranging from extremely specialized satellites to networks of ocean buoys. It turns out that weather is a global phenomenon and warming seas on the other side of the planet affect wherever you are.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

You're not wrong, but I would like to point out that there is also the Civilian Weather Observer Program (CWOP) that is fed by a lot of private weather stations (the kind you can buy at Walmart of Amazon and put at your house). I believe the data is aggregated and averaged to account for variations in installation deficiencies, and used to inform/enhance the government maintained data feeds.

[mike_hearn]

We have good weather data because of satellites, and there are plenty of private weather sats.

The classical US ground station network is actually run by volunteers and has been seriously degrading in quality over time. Its data was identified as corrupted and useless for climatology decades ago, which is what led to the US CRN being built. Other countries however did not do an equivalent, and their networks are still very low quality. Most of the UK's network, for example, is considered unusable for climate monitoring under WMO standards (but they are still used regardless!).

[yalogin]

I respect cynicism and questioning stuff but this is misplaced. You have to trust the government since they are potentially the least partisan source here. Yes the data can be misconstrued by legislators but the truth of the data cannot be in question. It’s healthy to question it but the solution is to require proof of non-sabotage. It takes a lot of money and resources to pull this data together. It’s compiled by organizations across the world and being the trustworthy anchor is the most efficient way to achieve this. With that the government agency has every incentive to be non partisan and operate with integrity.

[mempko]

The point of a democracy is the people regulate it. It seems we are so far from a democracy and people feel so little agency, that we forget this.

Yes, this should be done by the government. Yes the people MUST make sure the government is doing what they want.

The problem with putting work like this in private hands is they are not as accountable to the people as a government SHOULD be.

[estearum]

Private companies can pay for their own data collection and if they have a dispute with the government's analysis, they can go to court.

Who exactly is going to pay for these non-governmental independent data collection/analysis efforts?

How about taxpayers pay for one analysis, private parties pay for theirs, courtrooms can resolve inconsistencies on a case-by-case basis.

[gman83]

That would be great if the courts were actually neutral arbitrators and not captured political entities.

[estearum]

"The courts" writ large are doing just fine. SCOTUS in particular is a cesspool, but that is not the typical situation at all.

And in any case, an imperfect adversarial judicial system is dramatically better than whatever la-la-land "government has no data of its own" dystopia GP is imagining.

[anigbrowl]

I agree with your feelings but 'activists and independent scientists' do not have the resources to maintain that sort of infrastructure over the long term and will also be continually fending off attacks on their credibility. Institutions exist because volunteering has limitations.

[titzer]

Hard disagree. Public funds are absolutely for funding research into things that affect the public on a large scale. That's the whole point. What could be more "general welfare", as envisioned in the constitution, than making sure we are not screwing up our collective home?

[anigbrowl]

I think you meant to address this to someone else? I was saying it's not practical to leave it up to people volunteering, with all the uncertainty and unreliability of funding that that implies.

[9dev]

This notion of "the government" is the wrong premise. The US government is (supposed to be, I should say) an elaborate system of checks and balances to enable self-correction mechanisms. The Trump administration has turned that into a travesty, obviously, but the system itself is explicitly set up to be split into three branches that keep each other in check, and thus supervising itself.

[tastyfreeze]

Congress abdicated the majority of their authority to the executive over time by creating executive agencies. Now everybody is upset because the executive is actually using the power that Congress gave to it. The primary check on government growth is the three branches contending for power. No branch wants another branch to become more powerful and make their branch irrelevant. So, to fix the current issue, Congress can remove the power it has given to the executive and restore balance.

[titzer]

> The primary check on government growth

Disagree. The primary check on the government is consequences for violating the law and the constitution. That's just all gone out the window.

Power without oversight, no matter how distributed, will tend towards either complete chaos or tyranny (or both, if such a thing is possible). Giving three mutually distrustful criminals guns will not cause law and order to spring out of nothing.

An informed, angry and unforgiving citizenry is the only check on government, and we ain't go that.

[sampli]

These checks and balances failed long before Trump started abusing the system

[buellerbueller]

Yes, sadly, several decades ago, one of the parties started running on the platform of "the government is broken" and to help the electability of said platform, they kept breaking the government.

[fwip]

Look, I vote blue too, but you can't ignore that the Democrats have also pushed the slider further and further toward executive power every chance they get. Well, I guess I can't tell you what to do, so I suppose you can.

[buellerbueller]

I don't "vote blue." I vote for whichever candidate offers the most realistic solutions to the problem at hand. At times this may be "blue" but not necessarily. I have also voted 3rd party and skipped voting for a specific role alotgether.

Also, not even sure what you are talking about. My point specifically was about the congress, where the Republicans have stonewalled legislation, stolen SCOTUS seats, and shut down the government the vast majority of shutdowns since it became a "legitimate"(?) tactic.

> Democrats have also pushed the slider further and further toward executive power every chance they get

for example...?

[fwip]

Okay, you can scroll back up and see that the thread is about the erosion of checks and balances. After that, you can do a web search to read either about the Clinton administration's increased partisan direction of federal agencies, or Obama's increase in both scope and number of executive orders.

Presidential powers have been ratcheting up for at lest thirty years. And neither party seems particularly interested in turning the dial back once they're in power.

[toofy]

indeed.

cause the problem then complain the problem exists. that’s been their intentional platform for years and years.

[sbseitz]

Not to this extent!

[alphawhisky]

You misspelled "self-corruption"

[mannanj]

That doesn't seem controversial to me.

I wish the same were true of all federal organizations though. For example, CIA regulates itself with its own supervision too.

Other orgs do it too. I don't think they do it well.

[estearum]

> CIA regulates itself with its own supervision too

That's not true lol. There is a gigantic supervisory apparatus constantly breathing down the IC's neck, including but not limited to your very own elected Congressperson's investigative powers.

[mannanj]

Ah ok. Well I don't see it limiting their misconduct and behavior, do you?

[estearum]

Yes, I do.

Perhaps you mean to say: I don't see it eliminating their misconduct and behavior.

[mannanj]

No I meant limit.

[estearum]

Well then unfortunately you just have no clue what you’re talking about.

The notion that the CIA is “not limited” by checks and balances is beyond laughable.

How many people have you met who work there? Ever talked with someone about the limitations (or lack thereof) on their work?

I will bet the answers are zero and no. Am I wrong?

[cogman10]

> how can we trust either its legislative or executive branch to ensure that their creations are effective or efficient?

Glad you asked. That's actually the job of the Inspectors General. One of the first groups of people Trump completely eliminated.

It was their job to stop things like corruption, waste, and fraud in the federal government.

[actionfromafar]

Yes! We could pool our efforts though, in a larger organization (let's call it a democratic republic), vote on who should preside over it, be on the "board" and hire some people to run the day-to operations of the whole thing.

If a single organization proves too unwieldy, we could even have a federated solution.

Edit: another suggestion https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=48898415&goto=item%3Fi...

[hvb2]

This is the American way.

The end result? Judges being elected that nobody knows. Some even running unopposed. Yet, they all are 'elected'.

No. I don't think Americans can elect more people. I would be shocked if over 10% formed their own opinion on which judge to pick for example. If you're lucky they did that for the ballot measures...

[pstuart]

> Judges being elected that nobody knows.

I think this falls under "least worst option". I confess that I (and most others) don't have the time or focus to properly evaluate judicial candidates, so I turn to "trusted resources" to help guide my vote.

It's easier to vote on higher level issues, like ballot propositions or state/federal representation.

That said, the fact that a significant portion of the voting public voted in a man who epitomizes the most unqualified and inappropriate person into the US presidency has shaken my faith in democracy.

[groundzeros2015]

All agencies are ultimately accountable to the public via democratically elected leaders as the Supreme Court recently upheld. No part of the government is independent body, it’s in one of the 3 branches.

[hvb2]

Ignoring the guy who's there now. How accountable is the president really, especially in their second term.

And do consider that the supreme court has ruled that they're immune for anything that's an 'official act'.

Accountability of the executive left the room in 2024

[groundzeros2015]

Your desire for a higher oversight authority beyond the chief executive suggests you may have concerns about the efficacy of democracy.

And I don’t think that’s wrong. But let’s clarify. Either we trust the process to elect leaders who actually hold power or we think voting is broken and we need a body of leadership which exists independently of the democratic process.

[hvb2]

> Your desire for a higher oversight authority beyond the chief executive suggests you may have concerns about the efficacy of democracy.

No that's not what I said. The courts can hold someone in the executive branch accountable. They're the check on their power.

Except the president, because of that one ruling.

So if the president commits fraud as part of an official act he's immune? No other person in the executive branch has this immunity. And it was given to the most powerful person.

[groundzeros2015]

The president just tried to operate an executive order and it got shut down by the courts.

The specific ruling is about the president being immune from criminal charges while in office. And yeah, you can’t be taking George Washington to court (or jail) while he is leading the revolution. It’s essential for the nation to have a functioning leader, especially among the fog of war.

The Bible story of David and Saul presents another example of this principle.

To bring it back though… what you’re telling me is we can’t trust a democracy to elect an executive.

[svachalek]

With the amount of gerrymandering and campaign finance going on, there's a question of whether this is a democracy in the first place. If it is, it's clear it can't be trusted to elect an executive who follows the laws.

[hvb2]

I don't think you understand the issue. That ruling has nothing to do with prosecuting a sitting president. There's been longstanding policy that that doesn't happen.

The fact that an executive order is incompatible with the constitution is something completely different. That's a law being judged on its merits. Immunity is about the executive as a person.

[wat10000]

Except the Federal Reserve for some reason.

[groundzeros2015]

Look at the recent ruling on this topic.

[unethical_ban]

This makes no sense to me. National governments have no moral or legal responsibility to monitor the environment, because they also regulate pollution? Is this a joke?

Only private companies with some fantastical profit motive to install satellite and sensor networks all over and above the globe should do it, not the government?

[titzer]

Ah yes, we can't trust that our elected officials understand their duty well enough just fund Science and find out stuff works, so better throw up our hands and let the "market" do it.

Your view isn't controversial because it's daring, it's just plain nihilistic. It's just anti-government dogma which is cultivated by an incredibly cynical media atmosphere.

[imoverclocked]

> To that end, I hope the Trump administration's actions cause independent data collection and analysis by activists and independent scientists

Activists and independent scientists ... funded by whom? Data collected by whom? Data stored and distributed by whom? Data analyzed by whom? -- All of these roles are non-trivial, unlike your understanding of "the government" as a single monolithic entity; The government has/had different branches for the collection and study of climate vs (eg) the enforcement of emissions. The issue in our government today isn't the trust/separation of these different entities but the attack on them from above and abroad.