We need to talk about these cuts are happening to NOAA and EPA. Over a thousand people have been fired from both of these departments that provide so much critical research and protections and enforcements for environmental regulations that are out to protect you. We're gonna talk about on today's episode of the how to protect the ocean podcast. Let's start the show. Hey everybody, welcome back to another exciting episode of the how to protect the ocean podcast. I'm your host Andrew Lewin.
This is the podcast where you find out what's happening with the ocean how you can speak up for the ocean what you can do to live for a better ocean by taking action and on today's episode we're gonna be talking about how the ocean is being affected by the lack of people that used to be able to do research critical research be able to predict weather be able to manage fisheries be able to look after and model climate change be able to enforce Regulations for the clean water and the
Clean Air Act that are designed to protect US citizens as well as other people around the world now, they're gone They are no longer employed with NOAA or the EPA and we need to talk about it on today's episode because this is not good This is going to have long-term effects before we get into those effects We are going to talk about what actually happened in this sort of battle for science this war against science So recent mass layoffs at the NOAA so the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency EPA are poised to have significant long-term effects on environmental research in the United States and over the next decade So in late February this past week, we saw about 880 NOAA employees accounting for about 7.3% of its workforce laid off These layoffs include critical personnel for divisions such as the National Hurricane Center and the Storm Prediction Center Notably 25% of the Environmental Modeling
Center staff were laid off and these reductions are predicted to impair NOAA's capability to provide accurate weather forecasts and conduct essential climate research potentially compromising public safety and effectiveness of disaster response mechanisms The layoffs also affected NOAA's support for external research institutions So for example, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, which is a huge research institute in San Diego They received $42 million from NOAA in
the fiscal year of 2023 and 2024 now faces uncertainty regarding future funding as all the funding have been taken away This jeopardizes ongoing research projects and development for the environmental studies A lot of research graduate students, a lot of research that goes on to look at coastal modeling, looks at water quality, looks at conservation, a lot of different aspects will be affected through Scripps almost immediately And this is a big problem The EPA also experienced significant
staff reductions with over 300 probationary employees terminated These cuts targeted personnel responsible for enforcing the regulations of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts Those involved in reviewing environmental permits The loss of these employees could delay critical oversight functions and hinder timely responses to pollution and environmental disasters Thereby affecting the agency's ability to maintain environmental safeguards and public health protections This is serious guys
I don't think I've ever seen cuts this big since we saw them in Canada happen a number of years ago, about a decade ago When Stephen Harper was prime minister with the conservatives, they made drastic cuts, but there was a strategy involved around it It's a very similar strategy to what's going on with the environmental reductions that are happening in the US It was all for oil and gas In Canada, about a decade ago, there was a pipeline being built from the tar sands
in Alberta all the way to the coast in BC The reason why it took so long to do it is they had to cross these rivers and water crossings and so forth And when you have to do that, that automatically triggers an environmental assessment with those environmental assessment
You look at species at risk. You look at fish habitat to cover the fisheries act, the species at risk act and those were hindering the production of this pipeline So what the government decided to do under pressure of oil and gas companies, they said, hey, you know what we're actually going to do? We're going to change the law. We're actually going to go in and we're going to change the fisheries act. They want to change the species at risk act, but they weren't able to do it in
time. They got voted out before they could do it. But they changed the fisheries act to changing the wording of it. We used to be able to protect fish habitat.
Then they wanted to change it. They said we're going to change that to protect commercially, recreationally and aboriginally commercial species that were actually fish that had a 30 year history of being fish, which took out a lot of the rivers and lake systems in Canada out of the running because it's just some of the fisheries hadn't been established for over 30 years.
So that allowed the government to give permits faster for these oil and gas companies, no matter what they were going over, no matter what fish habitat they were destroying. Now, obviously, if you look at any conservation manual, you look at any fisheries site or talk to any fisheries scientists, they're going to say the best thing to do to protect fisheries is to protect their habitat because without their habitat, you're not going to have these fish. The government didn't care about this.
They wanted this pipeline to go through. There was a lot of freedom of information. It was a big controversy that I've gone into in past episodes. I'm just giving you the rundown here. But regardless what happened, they changed the law and when they changed the law, they actually affected all the people that were under those sections.
So we used to have like a section under the science that looked at environmental permits that were just looking at anybody who wants to develop where they would affect fisheries habitat. Now they didn't have to care about fisheries habitat. They just had to care about the recreational aboriginal viable species that were actually had a history of 30 years being fished. So now they actually couldn't have a fish habitat sector. They had to destroy that sector. They took it away and then they
actually built up a new one. I think it was called fisheries protection program. That program was redesigned. It was very similar to what you did is just redesign under the new act. Now, since then, the Trudeau government came in and the first thing they did is they reviewed the fisheries act and they made it better. They put the fish habitat back in and they put it back. They put a lot of other things in there as well to make it stronger.
The problem was it took five years for them to do that after they got into power because anything in government when you're putting a lot together, you have to take your time. You have to go through a specific process to get it done. All the development projects actually had went through really quickly and it could have destroyed fish habitat. So we had that five-year gap. Plus now you got to put it all together. It was ridiculous to
be honest. It was really bad that we went to see and then after this happened when they put in that new division of the science section, the government, they had to rehire everybody. So what they did is they laid people off. Luckily, we were unionized. They laid people off and they couldn't get like just lay them off and you're done. You don't have a job. They had to give you choices of where you want to apply to, but you could move all over the country wherever you want to. So a lot of people
got moved because they were forced to. So they had to move their homes. They had to move away from their family and friends and then some of them just actually just retired. A lot of them retired. They were on the cusp of retiring anyway, but it was all in the game of changing the law so that they can get this pipeline through. It was all about oil and gas and let's not get into the problem. So they were kind of twisted. This is about oil and gas and mining and development and natural resource
development. That's what it is in the states right now. We are seeing this happen. We're seeing the Marine Mount Protection Act. That's going to be changed. We're seeing the clean water and the clean air acts. A lot of those regulations were rescinded. They were just taken out just like they were in the first Trump administration. I think it was like hundreds of different regulations were not applicable anymore and they were just taken out based on
executive order. So now those two things that we looked at, the Marine Mount Protection Act that was very big when it came to oil and gas and seismic surveying, which is all about oil and gas had to do with you can't harass or kill or hurt harm a marine mammal, even especially when you're doing oil and gas. So that was a big hindrance to oil and gas production and just building and finding and drilling new wells. But then you also have the clean air and clean
water act. So if you wanted to do coal plants or if you wanted to have mining, they had to have specific regulations that met criteria to meet the law so that they could have a better water. So that's why I think that they didn't pollute the air or the water in and around these mining areas or any kind of fossil fuel areas or any kind of chemical plant. Really like think about New York City, the harbor that got cleaned up over a number of years over decades because of things like the clean
water act. You weren't allowed to dispose of chemicals or anything bad in the water and that harbor got cleaned up so much so that humpbacks are coming back and you see men. So you enjoy that water a lot better and it just becomes a nicer area to visit in a nice area to see and you have a healthy ecosystem. But people don't care about that these days. People care about more oil and gas development and fossil fuel development. According to this administration, they're going to drill
baby drill. They care about mining and they care about anything that will harm the environment, it seems. And they're getting rid of the regulations to do that. And one of the things to do, not only are you getting rid of the regulations and changing the law, but you're also getting rid of the people who have the same skills that will actually help build these laws or help enforce these laws further or make these laws better to protect the environment and protect US
citizens. And I think that's where it really comes down to. So what I wanted to know was I was like, what are the long term impacts of removing over a thousand people from the workforce in and around environmental departments such as NOAA and such as the EPA. I just kind of looked at a couple of things, a couple sources here that talked about it and I'll list those sources in the show notes. But one is diminishing
research capacity. Obviously, the reduction of skilled scientists and researchers will likely slow progress of environmental studies of leading gaps in data and reduced understanding of environmental changes. The other was compromised public safety with fewer experts monitoring and predicting environmental hazards. Communities may face increased risk from events such as hurricanes, wildfires and industrial pollution. We just saw what happened in
the wildfires in Pasadena. We saw how quickly that fire came through without warning people that they were going to be affected. Especially when you're looking at when the wind are going to come up and you can predict those winds, what's going to happen there. And the last one is the erosion of institutional knowledge. So the departure of experienced personnel results in the loss of valuable institutional knowledge which is crucial for mentoring new scientists and maintaining the continuity
of long term research projects. When you are in government, you have these projects. It's very important to understand that you have a particular And when you come in as a young scientist in government, you usually get assigned to a project. Some of these projects are five years, three years. Some of these have been going on for 50 years in monitoring and so forth.
If you lose that, you lose those five, 10 years, or you eliminate those programs, or even you eliminate the scientists that have been there for a long time, and you have these new people who are coming in, you're not getting the experience that the older scientists would be able to pass down because they are gone, essentially. Or you lose that young cohort that came through because they were the last ones to get on. So they're the first ones to get off in layoffs.
And so now you have a gap of the generation that doesn't know what they're doing when they get back in. And hopefully they'll be able to rehire for those positions.
It's gonna be expensive, it's gonna be difficult, but all that data that you lose in between getting rid of people who've been there over 30 years, or even 20 or even 15 or even 10, or even just like two, you lose that institutional knowledge and you lose that ability to train and mentor new scientists that are coming through that'll allow them to be better than the other scientists when they first came in.
That's the whole point is make science better, but you're not able to do that when you're losing these gaps of people. It's not as if these layoffs are based on performance. These layoffs are based on what saves the government the most money, but also they never look at what will destroy the government or these programs or will hurt the citizens. And we've already seen some examples that Elon Musk himself has admitted to.
Those canceled an Ebola program, and they realize that they were like, Oh, hold on a second. We actually need that. So we're gonna bring those people back and we're gonna put the bullet program back out. So it's okay. We make mistakes even said, but we will try and rectify them as soon as possible. It just goes to show that they're not really looking at stuff that's critical. They're just going through and they're just taking away things that they think is a lot of money.
And if it's a lot of money, they can save them a lot of money, then they'll do it. It's really coming at it from a very tech and private sector format, which you can't do in the public sector because these programs that people know nothing about these people who are coming in, they know nothing about they know nothing about their significance. They're just looking at the price tag.
They have no idea what this can do in terms of harm for a lot of people taking away an Ebola program, you know, give it to them. They put it back. But why take it away in the first place? Why don't you take your time go through each program? They're just kind of coming through quickly quickly and cutting, but then they don't realize what mistakes they're making in the future. Taking away people who model and predict weather is very, very dangerous.
We just talked to Dave Jones last episode and what that meant for the weather service and for NOAA and for satellites and for NASA. These are our programs that are critical to U.S. citizen safety. We don't know where these hurricanes are coming from. We don't know the power of them. We are going to be lost when these hurricanes comes and hit people. And unfortunately, people are going to die because of it. And who takes responsibility for that?
Right? Is the government going to take responsibility because these programs have been taken out? We always see that when a natural disaster comes, we see, oh, well, you know, the fire department got cut at a certain time because of whatever. Right. Cost savings. And then you're like, well, the wildfire came through and the fire department didn't have as many resources, right? Because they had just gone through a budget cut or something like that.
We see this all the time after a natural disaster comes through. And instead of going in and saying, hey, we know we're going to have more natural disasters and we need to shore up that staff and those resources. No, they always do the opposite. It's extremely frustrating. But the real part here that really gets me is the fact that over a thousand people do not have jobs that had jobs just this past week. And it has nothing to do with the way they perform. These are very good scientists.
These are scientists who work as a public servant and they don't look at party lines. They look at what their project is. They take very good pride in their project and they do it for years and sometimes decades. And to just be taken away like that is extremely disappointing. Right. To get funding rescinded like that is horrible. And this is going to flood the job market like for organizations that may not be able to pay like they used to get paid in the government.
I don't know what's going to happen to a lot of these people. This is extremely sad to see what's going to happen. And the long term consequences of this is going to be very sad. It's going to be long after Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have had their administration in. They'll be long gone after this, hopefully after these four years. And we are going to see a mess. We're going to see a mess that has to be cleaned up by the next administration, whether that be Democratic or Republican.
And that is going to be harmful for the U.S. in the long term. I don't think people understand how harmful this is going to be even in the short term when we start to see these programs get cut so quickly. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Are you a government employee or used to be a government boy? I'd love to hear your story. You can DM me at how to protect the ocean. You can put your comments down below on YouTube or on Spotify.
Obviously you can DM me on Instagram at how to protect the ocean. But don't forget to subscribe and hit that notification bell so you don't miss any other episodes we put out Monday, Wednesday and Friday. I would love to hear your thoughts. Of course. So please put them in the comments whether you're for these layoffs or against these laughs. I'd love to hear your thoughts regardless. And I want to thank you so much for joining me on today's episode of the how to protect the ocean podcast.
I'm your host, Andrew Lewin from the true North strong and free. Have a good day. I'll talk to you next time and happy conservation.