The election of Donald Trump to a second presidential term has reignited concerns in Boulder’s science community about how new leadership might affect local climate change research, including whether funding will be cut.

Boulder-area scientists were worried when Trump took office in his first term that funding for climate change research would be cut, preventing the continuation of what many view as critical, potentially life-saving research.

“Sometimes we think that time is circular, that things repeat themselves,” said Pedro DiNezio, a climate scientist and professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. “It feels a lot like eight years ago but it’s hard to tell if it’s going to be exactly like the last time.”

Although funding cuts were a concern eight years ago, Boulder labs did not lose any federal funding. Dan Powers, the executive director of CoLabs, said that’s thanks to Congress. CO-LABS is a nonprofit organization in Boulder that champions the value of taxpayer-funded research and brings scientists and labs together.“We need to wait and see what the difference is between what congressional leadership ends up looking to support in terms of funding for federal agencies and what the president puts forth in terms of a budget proposal,” Powers said.

Powers is once again worried about federal funding cuts to science during Trump’s second term despite no funding being lost the last time.

“I perceive a different overall mindset in Congress that isn’t explicitly anti-climate science, it’s more government budget reduction minded,” Powers said. “And with that driving the motives, it can make it even more challenging to speak up for science because there could be more of a ‘we must reduce spending no matter what’ mindset.”

More diverse funding sources

A 2017 economic impact report developed by CO-LABS and CU Boulder showed that federally funded labs in Colorado contributed about $2.6 billion to the state’s economy and directly employed nearly 7,800 people. Boulder County contributed the largest share of any Colorado county at about $1.1 billion. Production of an updated economic report was delayed due to the pandemic, and Powers anticipates a new one will be released in 2025.

DiNezio was working in Texas during the first Trump presidency and remembers everyone was stressed because of funding, which ended up never being lost.

“Back then, we did not feel directly the effect on research,” DiNezio said. “This time, it’s harder to see how it’s going to play out. Is Congress still going to support research?”

While still concerned about federal funding being taken away, DiNezio feels less worried compared to the first Trump presidency. The field of climate science and research has changed, and businesses in the private sector, insurance companies and individual communities are getting involved in funding research partnerships.

“Now climate change is happening faster, in more places. It’s more evident,” DiNezio said. “Businesses and communities recognize the importance of predicting what’s going to happen.”

The field has become more integrated, and now climate scientists are in a more diverse funding landscape. If the United States pays less attention for four years, DiNezio said, the private sector and other countries will continue to move forward. The problem won’t go away because the president denies it’s there, and there’s still a need to understand the causes of climate change events.

“Federal funding for research is still important,” DiNezio said. “Perhaps I’ve said all these things about how the private sector can step in, but the federal government makes the investments in the type of research that is fundamental that helps develop new technologies.”

Kevin Trenberth is a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, or NCAR. He started at NCAR in 1984 and became a senior scientist there before retiring and moving to New Zealand in 2020. He remains active at NCAR and continues to write papers for the lab.

He thinks it’s likely that federal funding for climate research will be cut.

“You’re never quite sure how it’s going to play out, but shortages of funding in a number of areas are apt to have adverse effects on the ability to deal with climate change,” Trenberth said.

He said it may fall on individual states, cities or towns to do what they can to decarbonize the economy.

“Hopefully Colorado will go along with those kind of things, and regardless of Trump, a lot of good things will continue to happen,” Trenberth said.

It’s especially important in Colorado and Boulder to predict and understand climate change as it causes more wildfires and floods, he said, along with climate change impacts on the state’s water supply and snowpack.

“Water is very important for Colorado and management of water in Colorado is very important, and so those sorts of things should continue whether it has a climate change label on it or not,” Trenberth said.

‘It would be dispiriting’

Outside of funding, Powers is worried that climate skepticism and negative attitudes surrounding scientists displayed by the Trump administration will create a negative atmosphere in which scientists must work.

“Having the highest leadership of the country and other surrogates that speak for the president openly dismiss or mock science, and the kind of science that you dedicated your life toward, it would be dispiriting to a level that I actually can’t imagine,” Powers said. “It would be awful.”

He’s concerned “brain drain” will occur in Boulder, where senior scientists decide to retire early rather than endure four more years of working in a negative atmosphere.

“The collective loss of experience and knowledge that could occur if there appears to be such a dismissive and skeptic atmosphere of climate science only empowers and emboldens other countries and competitors around the globe to be the leaders of the science we lead in,” Powers said.

Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda aiming to restructure the federal government and consolidate power, outlines plans to dissolve certain established governmental science institutions.

For example, on page 674, Project 2025 calls to “break up” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which includes the National Weather Service. It said NOAA is one of the “main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.” NOAA should be broken up and downsized, according to the plan document.

NOAA representatives in Boulder did not comment on the matter.

Despite denouncing Project 2025 and denying any affiliation with it, Trump has nominated eight people to work in his administration who have ties to Project 2025.

DiNezio believes it’s important to stay optimistic.

“It’s going to be hard. It won’t be as easy as the last four years,” DiNezio said. “But there’s a lot of momentum, and I think we need to keep the momentum and hope this is just a blip in the long-term process of tackling this crisis and improving our quality of life. That’s my optimistic view.”

DiNezio said Boulder is a great ecosystem and supportive place to conduct climate research.

“We shouldn’t lose sight of our goals as scientists, our role, and hope that by doing that activism, in addition to our work, that society will support us and see the benefit of doing this like all science,” DiNezio said.