Nautilus

Will the March for Science Matter?

The closer one looks, the more intractable the politics become.Photograph by Mihai Petre / Wikicommons

Here’s a hypothesis worth testing: If anybody concerned with science was left on the fence about whether the April 22 March for Science was a worthwhile endeavor, a flurry of news in late March catalyzed them to action.

Let’s look at the data. On March 28, President Donald Trump signed a wide-ranging executive order designed to roll back the Obama administration’s efforts to combat climate change. The order took direct aim at Obama’s Clean Power plan—the key mechanism by which the United States was intending to meet the emissions cuts it committed to under the Paris agreement. Trump’s order also included a declaration that the federal government need no longer take into account climate change when evaluating environmental impacts on a project, lifted a moratorium on new coal leases, and set the stage for weakening regulations on methane emissions.

On March 29, Politico reported that an Energy department official had banned the use of the words “climate change” or “Paris agreement” in department memos. That same week, the GOP-controlled House passed one bill limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to craft regulations based on standard peer-reviewed scientific research. It also moved forward on another piece of legislation that would forbid scientists who had received EPA funding from serving on an EPA Scientific Advisory Board, while at the same time easing restrictions that prevented industry lobbyists from joining the Board.

And as if

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from Nautilus

Nautilus2 min read
The Rebel Issue
Greetings, Nautilus readers, and welcome to The Rebel Issue. Starting today through the end of April we’re going to bring you stories that revolve around the meaning of rebel. In our own happy rebellion against the conventions of science writing, we’
Nautilus8 min read
10 Brilliant Insights from Daniel Dennett
Daniel Dennett, who died in April at the age of 82, was a towering figure in the philosophy of mind. Known for his staunch physicalist stance, he argued that minds, like bodies, are the product of evolution. He believed that we are, in a sense, machi
Nautilus4 min readMotivational
The Psychology of Getting High—a Lot
Famous rapper Snoop Dogg is well known for his love of the herb: He once indicated that he inhales around five to 10 blunts per day—extreme even among chronic cannabis users. But the habit doesn’t seem to interfere with his business acumen: Snoop has

Related Books & Audiobooks