Here's a "climate pledge" for you, Jeff: undo some of the damage you did by supporting Trump by endowing a trust to keep this facility operational and collecting data for another 65+ years.

While this became a salient topic in the media during the proposed TMNT telescope construction, there's an angle to all this that has been lost in the national media. Some of the voices quoted as opposed to development tended to be the loudest, and in my opinion least reasonable, ones. These arguments tended to hinge on Native Hawaiian identity politics and cultural grievances - while there might be something there, such statements could come across as close-minded, and I think they mischaracterized the debate as about science and progress versus NIMBYism and indigenous rights.

The more legitimate concern has been the State of Hawai'i's general mismanagement of development on the mountain, and the failure of its relevant Board of Trustees to fulfill their contractual obligations. Many private/public construction projects in Hawai'i have the unfortunate tendency to turn into haphazard federal cash grabs: the exploding costs and years-behind-schedule rail system in Honolulu is a good example, and there's a fair argument to be made that the thirteen telescopes on Mauna Loa have followed a similar pattern. Some of these were legally supposed to have been cleaned up years ago.

As mentioned, I know people who've used some of the telescopes for research and I don't think many people in the islands question the value or substance of their work. I also personally prefer it to local government's addiction to developing tourism. At the same time, I think there's a fair debate that's less "we don't like scientists," and more "please clean up your old messes like you promised."

This is all tangential to TFA, and I doubt the current federal administration cares about it. I'll still be curious to see how this plays out. Pulling funding could hurt efforts to responsibly steward the site, which would be bad. At the same time, it could discourage the Board of Trustees from continuing to chase the next federal money hose opportunity in a questionably sustainable way.

In an ideal case, those involved will find a way to continue pursuing research, while those managing the site will pursue a more organized, transparent, and responsible development plan for the land in question.