I don't see what argument you're trying to make. This satellite is producing data that is a common good (not unlike the Bureau of Labor Statistics data). There are lots of use cases for such data. Just because one use case doesn't cover the whole cost to collect the data doesn't mean it's irrelevant to point out the loss.
I think you do see the point I’m making, since you correctly identified it and provided a rebuttal :)
Phrased more accurately: is the value from the sum of the use cases for the data gathered by this satellite greater than the cost of putting it into orbit and operating it? Or even just the continued cost of operating it?
The fact that the article mentions farmers as the only potential non-governmental beneficiary of this information makes me believe the answer to that question is no, it wasn’t.
The article mentions more than farmers using the data. Not sure how anyone can take you seriously when the first paragraph mentions oil companies using the data as well..
And what do they use the data for, exactly? If it was vitally important to their operations and profitability, don’t you think the authors would have explained specifically how they would suffer if this data was discontinued?
The reason they don’t is obvious. They don’t use this data at all. The government uses it to monitor their emmissions and browbeat them into funding green initiatives to pay for their carbon sins. It’s used to make charts that congressmen use as props on the house and senate floor when they promote climate regulation. It’s used to make sensational fundraising emails for the Sierra club and eye-catching headlines at NPR and CNN.
But also one guy at the Iowa State extension office used it in a few papers, so yeah, farmers use this vital information, too.
Comments
I don't see what argument you're trying to make. This satellite is producing data that is a common good (not unlike the Bureau of Labor Statistics data). There are lots of use cases for such data. Just because one use case doesn't cover the whole cost to collect the data doesn't mean it's irrelevant to point out the loss.
I think you do see the point I’m making, since you correctly identified it and provided a rebuttal :)
Phrased more accurately: is the value from the sum of the use cases for the data gathered by this satellite greater than the cost of putting it into orbit and operating it? Or even just the continued cost of operating it?
The fact that the article mentions farmers as the only potential non-governmental beneficiary of this information makes me believe the answer to that question is no, it wasn’t.
The article mentions more than farmers using the data. Not sure how anyone can take you seriously when the first paragraph mentions oil companies using the data as well..
And what do they use the data for, exactly? If it was vitally important to their operations and profitability, don’t you think the authors would have explained specifically how they would suffer if this data was discontinued?
The reason they don’t is obvious. They don’t use this data at all. The government uses it to monitor their emmissions and browbeat them into funding green initiatives to pay for their carbon sins. It’s used to make charts that congressmen use as props on the house and senate floor when they promote climate regulation. It’s used to make sensational fundraising emails for the Sierra club and eye-catching headlines at NPR and CNN.
But also one guy at the Iowa State extension office used it in a few papers, so yeah, farmers use this vital information, too.