Профиль

Sending you an email about an AI and climate resilience publication

This looks great. I just signed up. Want to weave in more discussion of AI into my Howard undergraduate class on climate change and am interested in AI for resilience in particular.

The proposal would focus political oversight on review of individual research proposals, consuming time that would better be used for high-level leadership. It assumes that political judgement can legitimately supersede objective assessment of merit by multidisciplinary expert peer review.

** OMB has not fully considered the economic impacts of the proposal. ** The proposal purports to “restore gold standard science” and promote scientific integrity, including transparency and independent (unbiased) peer review. However, it is difficult to see how it would achieve these objectives.

Agencies cannot simply delegate to OMB their respective authority. These agencies have their respective statutory requirements to implement congressionally-mandated programs, some of which explicitly require scientific peer review to take precedence over political reviews.

Moreover, this is the very first time that OMB is not providing direction in the form of guidance, but instead binding regulations.

OMB asserts they have the authority to promulgate this regulation by citing statutory language which states that the Deputy Director Manager is able to 'provide overall direction and leadership to the executive branch on financial management matters' but the proposal goes far beyond financial mgmt.

www.environmentalprotectionnetwork.org/epn-and-l4gg...

The proposed OMB rule Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance is getting the attention it deserves. Thousands of comments were submitted by yesterday's deadline. The Environmental Protection Network submitted a comprehensive set of comments for anyone interested in a critique of OMB's proposal.

Congrats to my former NOAA colleagues for launching the independent climate.us. This websites restores and maintains lots of taxpayer-funded and in some cases congressionally-mandated info that has been removed from fed websites. Check it out if you haven't already. lnkd.in/emwFQN7w

This is good news. When this was first announced it just made no sense and had no scientific or even cost justification.

My hometown is very excited for tonight's game!! So am I. www.chocolateworld.com/blog/pulisic...

My latest on substack: substack.com/home/post/p-... I've been focused in this space recently -- can we develop better metrics for climate adaptation and resilience

Congrats to Piers!!

Was sad to get this news. Rafe was a good guy, really respected him and enjoyed his sense of humor.

Really enjoyed being back at Penn State for the Climate Solutions Symposium and to contribute ideas for the Prepare PA initiative for my home state. Working on metrics of success for resilience in PA.

Happy to share this podcast I did with Ashely Harrigan and Jon Ray. Check out their Road to Resilience podcast series. www.youtube.com/watch?app=de...

Yes, they recently finalized a decision repealing the endangerment finding. That will be litigated. You could still have a climate adaptation program even without the endangerment finding.

EPA did that very formally in 2009 with the GHG endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. But yes, you have to acknowledge that there's a problem worth adapting to in the first place.

I was interviewed for this article. We thought climate adaptation work at EPA would be supported. It's always been and from my experience still is bipartisan. You prepare for change. It's as simple as that. www.eenews.net/articles/ada...