More than a Government Shutdown is at Stake After saying "Good luck!" to victims of Hurricane Harvey as he left Houston, Mr. Trump said he would now concentrate on addressing his 2018 budget plan. Buried in his budget proposals are deep cuts to many agencies and departments, notably ones that have provided up to date information on natural disaster preparedness.

As of this writing, the Appropriations Committee in the US House may soon give a thumbs up to some very destructive environmental proposals as riders to the overall budget bill to be introduced into the full House of Representatives. The bill must pass to avoid a Sept. 30 shutdown, so the riders could easily be overlooked. This all sounds very complicated—and we're losing the ability to get adequate information both to understand and to respond to it.

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed budget cut is 31 percent --the largest short of complete elimination of an agency or program. In the aftermath of Irma, EPA's Scott Pruitt had this to say: "To have any kind of focus on cause and effect of the storm versus helping people, or actually facing the effects of the storm, is misplaced. To use time and effort to address climate change at this point is very very insensitive to these people in Florida." His words could not be more ironic.

The EPA budget should be increased, not slashed. Not long ago Pruitt suggested having a lively debate on the existence of climate change. "What the American people deserve I think is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective and transparent discussion about CO2," he was quoted as saying.

He advocates a 'red team-blue team' approach to foster such a debate. (Would each team have cheerleaders?) The problem is, humans' role in climate change acceleration is settled science. It isn't debatable. Solutions should be debated-- not the causes. Soon after his inauguration, Mr. Trump authorized removal of the EPA's web page on climate change. (To date this includes over 1900 pieces of information, and the departments of Agriculture and Defense have likewise had to remove climate change information.) This censorship represents data compiled from 50 years of research, information that we as taxpayers have generated by funding scientific study, The First Amendment of the US Constitution has allowed censorship mostly for national security purposes. Reporting was often censored during the Civil War, WWI and WWII, Vietnam and Iraq. The 1950's saw widespread censorship during the McCarthy era. However, when President Nixon tried to prevent the NY Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers (one of the actions which ultimately forced him to resign) he was prevented from doing so by the Constitution.

By censoring data on climate change, even censoring the words climate change, it appears that making this information available amounts to an endangerment to the American people, which seems ludicrous in light of Harvey's and Irma's aftermath.

In addition to censoring vital information, NOAA's weather forecasts may be compromised because of budget cuts. NASA's aging weather satellite may not be replaced. Sea Grant research on ocean health (including temperature) will be eliminated. Warmer ocean water leads to more and greater hurricanes. This is serious business and we must pay attention. The government will shut down if budget legislation is not approved by September 30, and riders that get piggybacked onto the budget bill may get much less scrutiny when we're facing a potential government shutdown. Those opposed to anti-environmental riders will no doubt be seen as obstructionist.

The US House Appropriations subcommittee now has 30 Republican members and 22 Democrats which means these riders will probably pass and then advance to the full House of Representatives as part of the overall budget bill. CD 2's Representative Bruce Poliquin isn't on the Appropriations subcommittee but will get to vote on these destructive riders once the bill hits the full House. Among the riders being considered: Preventing EPA from requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems.

Refuting the fact that burning wood biomass produces any emissions at all (despite the fact that its emissions are often higher than those produced by coal). Delaying for ten years EPA's latest health standards for ground-level ozone (smog) pollution, preventing Americans from even having the right to know if the air we breathe is unhealthy.

Allowing corporations to apply for air pollution permits, thus permitting them to pollute at levels deemed unsafe under current national health standards. Consideration of the costs of carbon pollution on the rest of the world would be blocked. These are but a few of the riders opposing air pollution controls—environmental safeguards for water, public lands, endangered species and military security are also in the crosshairs. Scott Pruitt has his own floor in the EPA building. No one is allowed to just walk in; colleagues must be cleared in order to see him, and his daily schedule of appointments is kept secret.

The EPA, what's left of it anyway, is secret. Exhaustively researched climate data that's been funded by the government has disappeared. Amidst all this secrecy, how can Scott Pruitt say we're being "very very insensitive" when we're seeking to understand causes for the acceleration of natural disasters? We must be smarter, not dumber—without access to information that really is "legitimate, objective, peer reviewed and transparent," (Pruitt's own words) how can we know what our representatives are even voting for?

Beverly Roxby lives in Belfast