Connect with us

Business

Trump’s Cuts to Science Funding Could Hurt U.S. Economy, Study Shows

Published

on

Trump’s Cuts to Science Funding Could Hurt U.S. Economy, Study Shows

Cutting federal funding for scientific research could cause long-run economic damage equivalent to a major recession, according to a new study from researchers at American University.

In recent months, the Trump administration has sought to cancel or freeze billions of dollars in grants to scientists at Columbia, Harvard and other universities, and has moved to sharply curtail funding for academic medical centers and other institutions. Deeper cuts could be on the way. As soon as this week, the White House is expected to propose sharp reductions in discretionary spending, including on research and development, as part of the annual budget process.

Economists have warned that such cuts could undermine American competitiveness in areas like vaccine development, artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and could slow growth in income and productivity in the long term. The private sector can’t fully replace government dollars, they argue, because basic research is too risky and takes too long to pay off to attract sufficient private investment.

The study, by a team of economists at American University’s Institute for Macroeconomic and Policy Analysis, is among the first efforts to quantify the risks posed by Mr. Trump’s cuts. Because the full extent of the administration’s plans is not yet clear, the researchers studied a range of scenarios.

Even the mildest approach — a 25 percent reduction in public support for research and development — would correlate to a drop in economic output.

Advertisement

U.S. gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, would be 3.8 percent smaller in the long term — a decline similar in magnitude to that in the Great Recession, which ended in 2009. The drop in output would be much more gradual than that downturn, taking place over years rather than months. But it would also be more lasting. Cuts to scientific research would sap innovation, leading to slower productivity growth and, as a result, permanently lower economic output.

“It is going to be a decline forever,” said Ignacio González, one of the study’s authors. “The U.S. economy is going to be smaller.”

A smaller economy also means less income for the government to tax. As a result, while cutting investment could save money in the short run, it could leave the federal budget in worse shape over the longer term. The researchers estimate that a 25 percent cut to research funding would reduce government revenues 4.3 percent in the long term.

Larger funding cuts would have even greater effects. A 50 percent reduction in funding would lower gross domestic product nearly 7.6 percent, the researchers estimate, and a 75 percent cut would reduce it 11.3 percent — a larger decline than in any recession since the Great Depression.

Such estimates might seem extreme, but they are consistent with other research. A recent paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that government investments in research and development accounted for at least a fifth of U.S. productivity growth since World War II.

Advertisement

“If you look at a long period of time, a lot of our increase in living standards seems to be coming from public investment in scientific research,” said Andrew Fieldhouse, a Texas A&M economist and an author of the Dallas Fed study. “The rates of return are just really high.”

Political leaders in earlier eras appeared to recognize that payoff. In another recent study, Mr. Fieldhouse found that past efforts to cut the federal budget largely spared investments in nondefense research and development.

In recent weeks, scientists and higher education leaders have tried to rally support among the public and in Congress for continued federal funding. On Tuesday, the Science Coalition, a group of public and private research universities, released a report on the role of federal funding in promoting economic growth. The report highlighted examples of private companies that grew out of government-backed university research.

“Research that’s happening at one university, it doesn’t just stay in those walls — it has a ripple effect,” said Abigail Robbins, president of the coalition. “This is not a blue or red state issue. It transcends that.”

Advertisement

Business

10 years since Aliso Canyon: Disaster was wake-up call for U.S. on dangers of underground gas

Published

on

10 years since Aliso Canyon: Disaster was wake-up call for U.S. on dangers of underground gas

On an evening 10 years ago, Porter Ranch resident Matt Pakucko stepped out of his music studio and was walloped by the smell of gas — like sticking your head in an oven, he recalled.

Pakucko called the fire department. It turned out crews had already been up to the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility in the Santa Susana Mountains behind the neighborhood, responding to a report of a leak. Many of his neighbors were beginning to feel ill, reporting issues such as heart palpitations, vomiting, burning eyes and bloody noses.

“I swear I thought I was standing behind a 747 with its engines blowing — it was not just gas, it was oil smell, it was chemical smell that permeated,” recalled Pakucko, who went on to co-found the advocacy group Save Porter Ranch. “I couldn’t stay out there for 30 seconds. It tasted like f— gasoline.”

Soon it was clear that this wasn’t just a leak — it was a blowout. Over the course of 112 days, the Aliso Canyon facility would spew an estimated 120,000 tons of methane and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. It was the worst natural-gas well blowout in U.S. history, and an environmental disaster whose effects will be unpacked for generations.

The event was widely seen as a wake-up call to the dangers of methane and underground natural gas storage. Methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas, is about 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for about a quarter of all the human-caused climate change we are experiencing. A study published by UCLA researchers last month found that women in their final trimester of pregnancy who were living within 6.2 miles downwind of the blowout in 2015 had a nearly 50% higher-than-expected chance of having a low birth-weight baby.

Advertisement

The blowout ushered in a wave of new regulations to strengthen the governance of natural gas storage facilities in California and the United States, as well as new tools and technology to monitor methane emissions.

But 10 years later, some Porter Ranch residents say the wounds still feel fresh, and too many promises have been broken. After the disaster, then-Gov. Jerry Brown called for the permanent closure of Aliso Canyon by 2027 — a goal his successor, Gavin Newsom, called a top priority and vowed to meet even sooner.

Instead, Aliso Canyon remains open, with regulators voting in December to continue using the facility for years — probably into the 2030s — citing the need for natural gas to help maintain affordable energy rates and grid reliability in California.

Advertisement

The facility is a key asset for Southern California Gas. In an emailed statement, the company said the state would struggle to meet electricity demand without Aliso Canyon’s storage. The site fuels 17 power plants and helps keep the lights on during the hours that can’t yet be met by solar, wind and other renewable resources, the company said. Natural gas still represents about 40% of the state’s electricity supply.

“There’s a lot of work to do to get off natural gas and oil in California,” said Adam Peltz, senior attorney with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. “That work is underway, but it’s not complete. If you’ve built an economy on fossil fuels, it takes awhile to get off of it.”

Aliso Canyon was originally drilled as an oil field in the late 1930s before SoCalGas converted it to natural gas storage in the early 1970s. Utilities often use played out crude oil fields as places to pump gas downward under pressure and hold it until it is needed.

Aliso Canyon is one of the largest natural gas storage facilities in the U.S.

In the lead-up to the blowout, SoCalGas was filling the site in preparation for the winter heating season. Crews were using tremendous force to pump gas down a well that was more than 60 years old. But a metal casing on well SS-25 had corroded, and gas began blowing out at very high volumes.

Methane is not visible to the naked eye, but aerial images captured with infrared cameras and released by the Environmental Defense Fund showed a geyser-like eruption of the flammable, climate changing gas — making it clear to the whole world the magnitude of the disaster.

Advertisement
A man with glasses, in a dark jacket and red shirt, stands near people holding a sign and a banner

Matt Pakucko, right, founder of Save Porter Ranch, and other protesters against SoCalGas hold a rally at the intersection of Tampa Avenue and Rinaldi Street on Sept. 28, 2021, in Porter Ranch.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

It took nearly four months for crews to stop the leak. By that time, damage was done. More than 8,000 households were temporarily displaced, businesses were shut down, and two schools were relocated for several months.

Researchers are still working to unpack the health outcomes of the event. SoCalGas, meanwhile, has paid about $2 billion in settlements and agreed to operate the facility at a lower maximum pressure.

Officials with the gas company said they have shored up the facility, including replacing the inner steel tubing on all operating wells and conducting continuous ambient methane monitoring. All wells at the site are subject to real-time pressure readings and visual inspections four times a day, among other protocols, SoCalGas said.

Advertisement

“Over the past 10 years, SoCalGas has conducted comprehensive safety reviews and implemented multiple safety layers that protect one of California’s most important assets for energy reliability and affordability,” the company said.

While the maximum allowable operating pressure at the site remains reduced — about 3,183 pounds per square inch compared with 3,600 pounds per square inch in 2015 — state officials recently voted to let SoCalGas increase storage at the facility to 68.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas from 41 billion cubic feet, outraging many in the community.

But experts say there are silver linings to the disaster. California overhauled its underground natural gas storage regulations to make them the strongest in the nation and among the strongest in the world, according to Peltz, of the Environmental Defense Fund. The changes include more thoughtful rules for well construction, better monitoring and risk management, and improved planning and emergency response.

Congress reacted to the disaster by requiring its regulatory agency, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to issue safety standards for natural gas storage nationwide. In 2016, it adopted best practices recommended by the American Petroleum Institute, which were strengthened at the beginning of this month.

Many states with natural gas storage previously had no regulations at all, Peltz said.

Advertisement

“On a national basis, the systems will be safer as a result of that change,” he said.

There have been technological advancements too. The infrared aerial recording of the leak captured in 2015 was a relatively new technique at the time, but has now become commonplace. The California Air Resources Board conducted its first large-scale statewide aerial methane survey in 2016, identifying many of the largest methane sources in the state.

There have also been considerable advancements in the ability to observe methane super-emitters through satellites and remote sensors, according to Seth Shonkoff, executive director at the science research institute PSE Healthy Energy and an associate researcher at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health.

“The rub is that we know more than we ever have, and we’re perhaps controlling more than we would have if we didn’t have the technology to see them, but we’re still seeing more and more of these large-scale emission events all across the United States and all across the world,” he said.

Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are still rising. It is streaming, often constantly, from facilities associated with the oil and gas industry, landfills and dairy farms, among other sources.

Advertisement
View of a storage facility in a hilly area with winding roads

The Aliso Canyon Southern California Gas storage facility on May 28, 2020.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Methane isn’t the only concern either. Researchers now have a better understanding of what’s in the gas that blew from Aliso Canyon and that continues to be stored in natural gas facilities around the country. Although it is primarily composed of methane, roughly 99% of samples analyzed by Shonkoff and his team have contained hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, hexane and toluene, largely as a result of commingling with depleted oil and other subsurface materials.

Moving forward, he said, it will be critically important for gas companies to disclose to regulators and risk managers what their gas is composed of, so that if it leaks, responders can quickly determine the appropriate response.

“If we had had that with Aliso Canyon, we could have, within a matter of hours, understood whether people should get out of the way or stay inside, and we wouldn’t have had as many people suffering from health symptoms,” Shonkoff said.

Advertisement

In 2024, the Biden administration passed the first comprehensive rules to limit methane pollution by fining oil and gas developers for excessive emissions. But this year, the Trump administration revoked the rule, which it described as a tax.

At the same time, many natural gas storage facilities across the country are old and require retrofitting to meet current regulations, but such upgrades can be slow and expensive — often leaving ratepayers on the hook.

Residents near Aliso Canyon have also long feared an earthquake or wildfire in the area. The gas field sits along the Santa Susana fault and is in a high fire hazard severity zone. SoCalGas says it has numerous safety plans and procedures in place.

Perhaps the greatest tension remains between those who wish to see Aliso Canyon shuttered and the officials who say the facility is critically important to California’s energy supply, which is increasingly trying to serve power-hungry artificial intelligence data centers.

People sitting on a road, holding large posters of officials. Behind them are people in dark uniforms and a hilly landscape

Dozens of Porter Ranch protesters chant “shut it all down,” as they demonstrate at the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility in Porter Ranch on May 15, 2016.

(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

California has committed to reaching 100% carbon neutrality by 2045. But SoCalGas says it still needs Aliso Canyon.

“SoCalGas is aligned with the state of California in pursuing the technologies and infrastructure that supports California’s climate plan, including clean renewable hydrogen and renewable natural gas, that could, over time with other renewable energy projects, deliver the reliability and affordability Aliso Canyon supports today,” the utility said in a statement. However, any decision to reduce or eliminate operations at Aliso Canyon must be based on genuine reduced demand that is permanent, the company said.

Pakucko, of Save Porter Ranch, noted that the facility was offline for two years after the blowout without an interruption in service.

“Two years!” he said. “And guess what? We managed without the facility.”

Advertisement

For others in the area, it feels like the latest in string of broken promises.

Among SoCalGas’s settlement agreements was a $120-million consent decree with the state of California requiring the utility to fund methane mitigation projects, air monitoring and other initiatives to address alleged harms caused by the blowout. About $25 million of that went toward a long-term health study on the effects of natural gas exposure, which is being conducted by researchers at UCLA. The results are eagerly awaited.

About $26 million went to a program for dairy digesters in the Central Valley, which capture methane from cow manure before it enters the atmosphere. Many had hoped those funds would be spent closer to home, including former L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, who at one point envisioned the mitigation money being used to transform Porter Ranch into a net-zero community.

“That would have been so great,” said Patty Gleuck, a Porter Ranch resident who served on the community advisory group for the health study. Instead, “that money went to this dairy digester program that does not benefit this area.”

Like Pakucko, Gleuck recalled suffering health effects during the blowout, including a tightness in her chest and a metallic taste in her mouth that dissipated when she left the area and resumed when she returned.

Advertisement

She still suffers from a chronic cough and uses an inhaler, she said, adding that “a lot of inhalers were prescribed in the area.”

“A lot of people moved away, taking a loss on their homes because they were so sick, or their family members were sick,” she said. “I just don’t think that there has been justice.”

Continue Reading

Business

Cable giant Charter cuts 1,200 managers from its workforce

Published

on

Cable giant Charter cuts 1,200 managers from its workforce

Cable giant Charter Communications is laying off 1,200 employees nationwide as the company faces increased competition for its broadband internet packages.

The company operates Spectrum cable TV and broadband service, which was once a huge growth engine. But the company has faced a steady drumbeat of subscriber losses, including shedding 177,000 internet customers in the first and second quarters of this year.

The company has nearly 30 million internet customers.

The layoffs, equivalent to a little more than1% of its workforce, hit corporate and management positions at Charter’s headquarters in Stamford, Conn., and centers in Charlotte, Denver and St. Louis, according to a person familiar with the cuts but was not authorized to comment.

No sales or service positions were eliminated, the person said, adding the cuts were part of an effort to streamline management functions. The company is scheduled to announce its third-quarter earnings next week.

Advertisement

In addition to its internet service, Charter provides bundles of cable television channels to 12.6 million customers.

It also has nearly 11 million mobile phone subscribers.

The move comes in advance of Charter’s planned takeover of Cox Communications, which also operates in Southern California. This week’s cuts were not related to the Cox transaction, the knowledgeable person said.

Charter’s $34.5-billion industry-consolidating deal with Cox, which was unveiled in May, needs regulatory approval but that process has been slowed by the federal government shut-down.

Charter reported that it had about 94,500 active full-time workers at the end of 2024.

Advertisement

The company’s stock is down 27% since the beginning of the year. On Wednesday, shares slipped around 1% in mid-day trading.

Broadband internet has been the company’s bright spot as revenue from cable TV packages steadily declined over the years amid consumer cord-cutting and the shift to streaming.

Charter recognized that trend and began offering streaming apps to its broadband customers to help with retention efforts.

Two years ago, the company suffered huge cable TV customer losses during its 10-day blackout of Walt Disney Co. channels, including ESPN, during a tense distribution battle.

Charter was able to wrangle the ability to offer Disney’s streaming apps, including Disney+ and Hulu, to Spectrum customers.

Advertisement

The company had already been undergoing scattered instances of belt-tightening.

In August, Charter canceled its award-winning El Segundo based news show, “LA Times Today,” a collaboration with the Los Angeles Times, which ran on the cable company’s Spectrum 1 news channel.

Continue Reading

Business

A Warner Bros.-Paramount Merger? Here’s All the Films, Streaming Services and Cable Channels They Own

Published

on

A Warner Bros.-Paramount Merger? Here’s All the Films, Streaming Services and Cable Channels They Own

Hollywood’s obsession with splashy team-ups may soon find its expression in one of the biggest deals of the year.

Warner Bros. Discovery, the media behemoth that owns DC Comics, “The Sopranos” and Scooby-Doo, has received acquisition interest from multiple companies, including Paramount, the company behind “Star Trek” and “Top Gun.”

Warner Bros. Discovery acknowledged those discussions on Tuesday without naming specific suitors, reminding investors that it is still pursuing a spin-off off its studio business.

If a deal with Paramount reaches fruition, it would create a news and entertainment behemoth to rival streaming juggernauts like Netflix and Disney. Here’s a look at the films, shows and characters that the combined company would own, from Harry Potter to Captain Kirk.

Advertisement

Combining Paramount and Warner Bros. would bring together hit franchises and more than a century of cinematic storytelling. But it could also reduce competition for new projects and result in major cost-cutting as two studios come under the same corporate umbrella.

Both Paramount and Warner Bros. lag the biggest companies in streaming, Netflix and Disney. A merger would allow them to spread the money they spend on movies and TV shows across a wider base of subscribers, perhaps leading to better profitability.

CNN and CBS News, two of the most recognizable brands in journalism, would be a powerful combination. It could also result in significant cost-cutting for the combined company because of the overlap in newsgathering and production costs.

CBS News, the venerable network that was home to Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow, recently brought on board Bari Weiss, an opinion journalist who founded The Free Press, as its editor in chief. It’s unclear whether she would have oversight over CNN, the globe-spanning news colossus known for its blanket coverage of international affairs and breaking news, if the two companies merged.

Advertisement

While traditional cable networks are enormously profitable — generating hundreds of millions of dollars in cash — they are losing viewers and relevance every quarter. Some companies, like Comcast and Warner Bros., have been responding to that decline by spinning off their traditional TV businesses.

Not Paramount. The company behind “South Park” and “Yellowstone” is holding on to those channels, betting that those franchises will be popular with millions of viewers on both traditional TV and streaming. Acquiring a lineup of popular new channels would allow Paramount to shore up its leverage in negotiations with cable companies like Charter, which pay to distribute its programs. Both companies also rent rights to live sports, one of the last must-see programs in the imploding cable universe.

Prestige television is a linchpin for streaming companies, which rely on quality shows to entice new subscribers and keep existing customers happy. While HBO and Showtime are still reliable sources of traditional TV profits, both services are increasingly viewed as a supplier for their digital counterparts, HBO Max and Paramount+.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending