Cider Press Hill

Privatizing weather

National Weather Service potentially up on the chopping block. Thanks to a bill introduced by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) last week. Can’t he find something better to worry about?

A spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the bill threatens to push the weather service back to a “pre-Internet era” — a questionable move in light of the four hurricanes that struck the state last year. Nelson serves on the Senate Commerce Committee, which has been assigned to consider the bill.

"The weather service proved so instrumental and popular and helpful in the wake of the hurricanes. How can you make an argument that we should pull it off the Net now?” said Nelson’s spokesman, Dan McLaughlin. “What are you going to do, charge hurricane victims to go online, or give them a pop-up ad?"

But Barry Myers, AccuWeather’s executive vice president, said the bill would improve public safety by making the weather service devote its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather than duplicating products already available from the private sector.

"The National Weather Service has not focused on what its core mission should be, which is protecting other people’s lives and property,” said Myers, whose company is based in State College, Pa. Instead, he said, “It spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, every day, producing forecasts of ‘warm and sunny.’"

Santorum made similar arguments April 14 when introducing his bill. He also said expanded federal services threaten the livelihoods of private weather companies.

"It is not an easy prospect for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free,” Santorum said.

AccuWeather has been an especially vocal critic of the weather service and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

...

NOAA has taken no position on the bill. But Ed Johnson, the weather service’s director of strategic planning and policy, said his agency is expanding its online offerings to serve the public.

"If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that’s really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time,” Johnson said. “You don’t just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."

Heaven help us if anything was free. Even if it meant giving people more options for getting information to protect property and lives. Like during hurricanes? During tornado warnings? You know, minor things like that. Or how about just for general knowledge and information?

Corporate profits are so much more important.

Posted on 04/22/05 at 12:41 AM
 




Linkmeister

First rule of Republicans: Serve thy corporate contributor.  Think I’ll go look at one of the campaign finance sites and see how much Accuweather gave to Ricky boy.

United States   Posted by Linkmeister on 04/22/05  at  02:00 AM





Kate

Well, I found $3500. There’s gotta be more someplace. Ricky can’t be bought that cheaply can he?

United States   Posted by Kate on 04/22/05  at  02:41 AM





Linkmeister

No, not quite.

1995-2000 Total Receipts: $12,912,969
1995-2000 Total Spent: $12,910,306

That’s from OpenSecrets.org.  There’s another site I was at a while ago which broke it down by contributors, but I lost it. wink

United States   Posted by Linkmeister on 04/22/05  at  02:57 AM





Linkmeister

Ah, that was OpenSecrets, too, but you gotta click around the menu bar at the top.  I did a search for Accuweather in the soft money section and came up empty.  I thought I’d try their annual report, but they’re not publicly traded.  That also means they may be d/b/a some other name which is listed in the soft money section, but I haven’t found it.

United States   Posted by Linkmeister on 04/22/05  at  03:09 AM





Kate

Kind of an interesting background story of the ‘fair weather” controversy in the New York Times from back in January.

I especially like the part about Myers and Santorum capitalizing on one of the worst natural disasters in history to push their case. And how quickly! How Republican-esque.

BTW...looks like the private-sector weather trade/lobby group is called Commercial Weather Services Association. Can’t find anything regarding campaign contributions, though. But I did find another $5000 from Myers in June of 2004 at OpenSecrets under the Donor Lookup tab.

United States   Posted by Kate on 04/22/05  at  03:09 AM





Linkmeister

Josh Marshall picked up this story via the Carpetbagger Report.  Scoop!

United States   Posted by Linkmeister on 04/22/05  at  02:06 PM





Kate

Oh excellent. Thanks, Linkmeister. Josh puts it nicely into perspective. I do not know why we should feel sympathy for companies who get their weather information for free, information paid for with our tax dollars and currently available to us on demand, and then expect to make us pay them (again) for the information while cutting off our access to the source of the information. That we ALREADY PAY FOR WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS!

The more people who know, the better. This bill is so rotten.

United States   Posted by Kate on 04/22/05  at  02:39 PM





Linkmeister

Raw Story has an item about contributions to Santorum from Accuweather’s Exec. VP.  Via Kos.  Cheap enough...only $4,000 or so.

United States   Posted by Linkmeister on 04/22/05  at  02:48 PM





Linkmeister

Trust Billmon to have picked up on this in a way only he can.

United States   Posted by Linkmeister on 04/22/05  at  09:09 PM





Kate

LOL! Now that was good. I’m glad Billmon is back.

United States   Posted by Kate on 04/22/05  at  09:45 PM





Linkmeister

Further research cited at Ezra Klein’s place puts the price at $7,750 or so (via Brad DeLong).

United States   Posted by Linkmeister on 04/23/05  at  02:27 PM





Kate

This is interesting. I didn’t anticipate so many people being upset by this. I mean, people should be, but I’d imagine that it would be mostly of interest to weather junkies. Maybe we all are.

I wonder how much more quiet money will be found. There has to be something more than $7500 behind this. How much power does Accuweather have and what influence do they have over Santorum? It’s not normal business to introduce a bill for just a few thousand in contributions, is it?

United States   Posted by Kate on 04/23/05  at  03:22 PM





Linkmeister

It may be just the sheer effrontery of it.  After all, NWS is paid for by every taxpayer in the country.  The idea of them being told NOT to put information out just so a for-profit can do it may just gall people.  (Additionally, it’s Santorum, who’s not far behind Delay for disapprobation, as far as I can tell).

United States   Posted by Linkmeister on 04/23/05  at  09:02 PM





Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Cider Press Hill

Next entry: Poison

Previous entry: Hello Verizon