On Wednesday, the country’s foremost scientific advisory group released a significant report, presenting the most compelling evidence yet that carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases pose a direct threat to human health.
This report, from the prestigious National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, is crucial as it could hinder the Trump administration’s attempts to overturn a pivotal scientific ruling, known as the ‘endangerment finding.’ This finding currently provides the federal government with the legal basis to regulate the pollution fueling climate change.
Originating in 2009, the endangerment finding established that greenhouse gases jeopardized public health and well-being, thus necessitating regulation under the Clean Air Act. Both the Obama and Biden administrations leveraged this determination to implement rigorous controls on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and various industrial pollutants.
However, in July, the Trump administration proposed to withdraw this endangerment finding, asserting that newer research had ‘cast significant doubt’ on its scientific validity.
This proposal marks one of President Trump’s most substantial actions aimed at dismantling federal climate initiatives. Should this move withstand legal challenges, it would effectively strip future administrations of their authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
Crucially, the fresh assessment from the National Academies directly refutes the administration’s assertions. This comprehensive 136-page report, compiled by a committee of twenty-four scientists, affirms that the original endangerment finding remains accurate and has proven its validity over time. It further emphasizes that there’s even more robust evidence now, showing that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations pose severe threats to public health and welfare, with new dangers continuously emerging.
The report highlights diverse lines of evidence confirming that human actions, including burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are generating planet-warming greenhouse gases. This climate change, in turn, is intensifying numerous health hazards, such as extreme heatwaves and increased wildfire smoke. Furthermore, shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns, driven by climate change, are negatively impacting crop yields and reducing water availability in various regions, alongside other detrimental effects.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine operates as an independent, non-governmental organization, established in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln to provide expert advice on scientific and medical matters. This highly respected institution produces approximately 200 reports annually, covering a vast spectrum of subjects from fundamental physics to brain science, with its members elected based on their exceptional contributions.
Last August, the National Academies declared it was expediting its review of the endangerment finding. The goal was to provide timely input for the EPA’s decision-making. Federal law requires the EPA to seek public feedback on its proposal to revoke the finding and then address every comment submitted.
Certain Republican members of Congress voiced criticism regarding the National Academies’ swift completion of the report. Representative James Comer of Kentucky, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, asserted in a recent letter that this expedited decision constituted ‘a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration’ and alleged that some members overseeing the report had displayed ‘partisan bias.’
The committee responsible for this report was chaired by Shirley Tilghman, an emeritus professor of molecular biology and public affairs, and past president of Princeton University. Although predominantly composed of academics, the committee also featured members with industry experience, including a former Chevron employee and a former executive from Cummins, a truck engine manufacturer.
Dr. Tilghman stated that ‘This study was undertaken with the ultimate aim of informing the E.P.A., following its call for public comments, as it considers the status of the endangerment finding. We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making.’
In response, EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran countered, noting that the endangerment finding had justified ‘trillions of dollars of greenhouse gas regulations’ under previous administrations. She added that ‘many of the extremely pessimistic predictions and assumptions E.P.A. relied upon have not materialized as expected’ in the 16 years since its inception.
Holran concluded by stating that the EPA ‘looks forward to responding to a diverse array of perspectives on this issue’ before the public comment period closes on September 22.
To underpin its proposal, the EPA presented various legal and technical arguments. Among these, it highlighted that greenhouse gas emissions from American vehicles represent only a minor fraction of overall global emissions.
However, the agency also attempted to challenge the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change poses substantial risks to humanity. It referenced a report commissioned by the Energy Department, authored by a working group of five researchers known for dissenting from mainstream climate science. These individuals, personally selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, produced a report that, despite acknowledging global warming, contended that climate change is ‘less damaging economically than commonly believed.’
In a powerful rebuttal, over 85 scientists co-authored a 439-page response, asserting that the Energy Department’s analysis was flawed, filled with errors, and selectively used data to align with the president’s political narrative.
Furthermore, two environmental advocacy organizations have initiated a federal lawsuit, alleging that the Energy Department’s working group was established in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and therefore, the EPA should not consider its analysis. This lawsuit is still active.
Following the lawsuit, Secretary Wright dissolved the working group this month. Despite this, the Energy Department has stated it does not intend to retract its report.
Andrea Woods, an Energy Department spokeswoman, commented that the agency believes the working group fulfilled its goal: ‘namely to catalyze broader discussion about the certainties and uncertainties of current climate science. We will continue to engage in the debate in favor of a more science-based and less ideological conversation around climate science.’
According to some legal experts, the Trump administration’s strategy of disputing established scientific findings on climate change could pose significant challenges to its deregulation agenda in court.
Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, suggested, ‘It might have been a better strategy if they tried to sidestep the arguments about climate science altogether.’
Parenteau further warned, ‘Instead they’ve taken shots at climate science and that’s triggered an enormous response from scientists, and now they’re going to have to carefully respond to all of these comments. And if they shortchange any of them, that creates a legal vulnerability. Courts are going to be very leery if the E.P.A. tries to ignore or reject the findings of the National Academies of Sciences.’