C. Impact. NASA’s new focus on Earth science is key to monitoring and solving global warming. James A. Lewis et. al, , senior fellow and director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at CSIS Sarah O. Ladislaw, senior fellow in the Energy and National Security Program at CSIS, June 2010, “ Earth Observation for Climate Change,” http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf For most of the last decade, NASA was unable to replace its climate-monitoring satellites. Replacing these satellites is crucial to avoid a drastic decline in collecting the most valuable information for monitoring climate change. The Obama administration has proposed a budget for NASA’s Earth science programs of $2.4 billion in new funding over the next five years, an increase of more than 60 percent. The new funding, which requires congressional approval, will help replace OCO and allow NASAto replacethe twin GRACE satellites that make detailed measurements of Earth’s gravity field that can provide important climatedata. The request for NOAA’s budget for climate-related activities has been increased as well. NOAA will be spending $2.2 billion to maintain and further develop satellites and to support climate research; $435 million has been requested to support the U.S. Global Change Research Program, with $77 million in new increases for core climate services and observations. Spending on space has always been a question of priorities. Until recently, those priorities were frozen in time, reflecting political needs that were decades out of date. Our national priorities have changed. A new priority, reflecting the new challenges to our security and national interest, involves monitoring and understanding climate change. Debate over climate change is fierce and there are many skeptics, but the signs of major changes are undeniable. Warnings of catastrophe are likely overblown, but we do not fully understand the implications of climate change or the utility of various measures to mitigate it. Climate change is occurring, and it creates new risks. In this context, the recent decision to scale back spending on human space flight and increase spending on Earth observation is a better match for national priorities and interests. It updates a space policy that has been badly out of date for years. Observation of climate change began more than a century ago with simple measurements of the Earth’s average temperature. These were interesting, but inadequate. The breakthrough in understanding climate change came with Earth observation satellites. Satellites provide global awareness in ways that other technologies cannot match. The monitoring needed for a serious effort requires observations that can only be done from space. D. Unchecked, global warming will cause extinction. Oliver Tickell, environmental researcher, 8/11/2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4c rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
[____] [____] NASA’s most recent budget substantially increased funds allocated for Earth Science. Keith Cowing, writer at astrobiology.com, 2/1/2011, “The Obama Space Vision for NASA: Massive Paradigm Shifts Ahead,” http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1372 Over the past decade, NASA's focus on Earth Sciencehas faltered as it has across the Federal government. Thiswill be rectified with a hefty budgetthat willincreasethe enacted FY 2010 budget by $382 million and then go on to add an additional $1.8 billion between FY 2011 and 2014. In addition to re-flying the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, NASA will seek to accelerate the development of new satellites to observe Earth as well as support the existing flotilla of Earth observation spacecraft. Planetary science will see much less ofan increase than other parts of NASA. Its budget will ramp up from $1.486 billion in FY 2001 to $1.650 billion in FY 2015. Astrophysics will go from $1.076 billion in FY 2011 to $1.132 billion in FY 2015, and Heliophysics will go from $542 million in FY 2011 to $751 million in FY 2015. Some of the notable increases in space and planetary science, albeit small, include adding $16 million per year for the next 5 years to Near Earth Object (NEO) detection, restarting Plutonium-238 production with the Department of Energy for radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) construction, plans for a 2011 launch of Mars Science Laboratory, bringing the Mars 2016 mission into formulation, funding of James Webb Space Telescope at a 70% confidence level for a 2014 launch, and initiation of Solar Probe "Plus" mission.
[____] Obama cut the Constellation program in order to orient NASA towards climate science Chloe Albanesius, editor at PCMagazine online, “Obama Budget Cuts Moon Program, Boosts R&D”, 2/1/10, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358658,00.asp Among the programs on the chopping block are NASA'sConstellation Systems Program, aneffortto put astronauts back on the Moon by 2020. The $3.466 billion program, which started in 2005, is woefully behind schedule, and a review conducted in May 2009 found that the program probably won't put anyone on the Moon until well into the 2030's. Instead, the White House would increase NASA's overall budget in order to focus on climate science, green aviation, science education, and other priorities. It would also encourage NASA to leverage advanced technology, international partnerships, and commercial capabilities in its quest to return to the Moon. Also getting the proposed axe is the $12 million EP-X manned surveillance program and a $9 million revamped command and control center, both within the Department of Defense, as well as a $73 million infrared missile warning satellite program.