In a world faced with the intensification of natural disasters, the ability to understand and anticipate climate developments becomes a major strategic issue. Precise and continuous data have become an essential tool to guide environmental policies. It is in this tense context that the White House decision to suspend two key programs raises strong concerns. Because behind this budgetary measure hides a deeper questioning of climate surveillance by satellite.
The decision caused an uproar in the scientific ranks, but also in Congress. Voices like that of Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren denounces a blow to the ability of the United States to anticipate climatic disasters. She stresses that putting an end to missions already voted and funded could go against current budgetary legislation.
For many, this decision is not based on a rational choice. Rather, she aligned herself with the climatosceptic line defended by Donald Trump. David Crisp, former NASA researcher involved in these missions, believes that this orientation has no economic sense. He recalls that the two satellites only cost $ 15 million a year. This amount remains derisory against the 25.4 billion allocated each year to the space agency. These words are accompanied by a broader warning on the decline in environmental research.
Why is essential climate surveillance
In service for several years, these two satellites have made it possible to map CO2 flows with unprecedented precision. Their sensors analyze the concentration of this greenhouse gas at different points on the planet, a precious asset for scientists who model the evolution of the climate. Researchers rely on these observations to assess the effectiveness of environmental policies and anticipate phenomena such as droughts or forest fires.
An internal NASA report published in 2023 mentioned the “exceptional” quality of the data provided by the two observatories. Their interruption would therefore deprive the scientific community with essential references, especially in a context where climatic disasters are intensifying. Futurism reports that the agency has requested many researchers to assess the possibility of putting an end to these missions, which suggests that it had already advanced well in its decision.
Beyond their academic use, these data is also used by farmers to adjust their cultures in the face of atmospheric developments, or by the energy sector to assess its environmental impacts. Their disappearance would therefore create a technical and strategic void difficult to fill in the short term.
Towards an American decline in the observation of the earth?
It is not only the environment that is at stake, but also the scientific leadership of the United States. The abolition of these satellites is part of a larger project in the federal budget proposed for 2026. According to Senator Chris Van Hollen, this plan aimed to reduce the financing of scientific research from NASA by 47%, and to cancel 55 missions in progress or in preparation. The congress refused these cuts, but the simple fact that they were envisaged leaves doubt about the future direction of American space policy.
Cutting access to climatic data amounts to weakening the country's ability to anticipate and react to environmental crises. This also amounts to giving grounds to other space powers, such as China or the European Union, which invest massively in remote sensing and earth observation technologies.
By threatening the continuity of its atmospheric analysis programs, the United States takes the risk of advancing blind in a period of major upheavals. The end of these two satellites could well mark a turning point, not only in the country's spatial strategy, but also in its ability to face the future.
