America’s top scientific advisory group has just released a landmark report, presenting the most compelling evidence yet that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, which are heating our planet, pose a direct threat to human health.
This new report, from the prestigious National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, carries immense weight. It stands to complicate the previous administration’s attempts to overturn a crucial scientific judgment — the “endangerment finding” — which is the very foundation of the federal government’s power to regulate the pollution fueling climate change.
First established in 2009, the endangerment finding was the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that global-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and well-being, thus requiring regulation under the Clean Air Act. Both the Obama and Biden administrations leveraged this finding to impose rigorous limits on these emissions from vehicles, power plants, and various industrial sources.
However, in July, the previous administration put forward a proposal to reverse this endangerment finding, arguing that newer research had supposedly “cast significant doubt” on its scientific validity.
This move represented one of the most substantial actions by the previous president to dismantle federal climate initiatives. Should this reversal be upheld in court, future governments would effectively lose their power under the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
Crucially, the National Academies’ new assessment directly refutes these claims. This comprehensive 136-page report, compiled by a committee of twenty-four scientists, firmly asserts that the original endangerment finding was accurate and has, in fact, “stood the test of time.” The report further highlights even more robust evidence that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations pose severe threats to public health and welfare, revealing previously unknown dangers.
The report underscores that extensive evidence confirms human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are escalating greenhouse gas levels and warming our planet. This climate change is, in turn, worsening numerous health hazards, including severe heatwaves and an increase in wildfire smoke. Additionally, shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns driven by climate change are negatively impacting agricultural yields and reducing water supplies in various regions, alongside other significant disruptions.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is an independent, non-governmental organization originally established in 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln to provide scientific and medical counsel to the nation. This highly respected institution publishes approximately 200 reports annually, covering diverse fields from particle physics to neurobiology, and its members are elected on an annual basis.
Last August, the National Academies declared it was accelerating its study on the endangerment finding, aiming to provide timely information for the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision-making. Federal regulations mandate that the EPA must gather public feedback on any proposal to revoke the finding and then address every comment received.
However, some Congressional Republicans voiced criticism, accusing the National Academies of rushing the report. Representative James Comer, a prominent Republican on the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter to the organization, alleging that their decision was “a blatant partisan act to undermine the previous administration” and claimed that some committee members demonstrated “partisan bias.”
The committee guiding the 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 included individuals with industry backgrounds, such as a former Chevron employee and a former executive from Cummins, a prominent truck engine manufacturer.
Dr. Tilghman clarified in a statement that “This study’s primary purpose was to inform the EPA’s decision-making regarding the endangerment finding, especially after its request for public comments. We are confident that the evidence presented herein offers a robust scientific foundation for sound policy choices.”
In retort, EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran stated, “The endangerment finding served as the basis for the Obama and Biden administrations to implement regulations totaling trillions of dollars, targeting greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles and engines. However, over the past 16 years since its inception, many of the EPA’s initial, highly pessimistic forecasts and assumptions have not come to pass.”
Holran added that the EPA “eagerly anticipates addressing a wide range of viewpoints on this matter” before the public comment period concludes on September 22nd.
The EPA’s proposed rescission was supported by various legal and technical arguments. Among them, the agency claimed that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. vehicles represent only a minor fraction of overall global emissions.
However, the agency also attempted to challenge the widely accepted scientific consensus that climate change presents a serious threat to humanity. They referenced a report commissioned by the Energy Department, authored by a select group of five researchers known for dissenting from mainstream climate science. These individuals, chosen by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, produced a report that, while acknowledging global warming, concluded that climate change would be “less damaging economically than commonly believed.”
In a robust rebuttal, over 85 scientists co-authored a 439-page response. Their counter-report asserted that the Energy Department’s analysis was fundamentally flawed, filled with inaccuracies, and deliberately selected data to align with the previous president’s political objectives.
Meanwhile, two environmental organizations initiated a federal lawsuit, contending that the Energy Department’s working group was illegally formed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and therefore, the EPA should not consider its findings. This legal challenge is currently in progress.
Following the lawsuit, Secretary Wright disbanded the working group this month. Despite this, the Energy Department has declared its intention to stand by its controversial report.
Andrea Woods, an Energy Department spokeswoman, issued a statement indicating that the agency believes the working group fulfilled its goal: “to spark a wider conversation about what is known and unknown in current climate science. We are committed to fostering a more scientifically grounded, less ideologically driven discussion on climate science.”
According to legal experts, the previous administration’s efforts to dispute established scientific findings on climate change could significantly undermine its deregulatory agenda in court.
Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, suggested, “It might have been a more effective strategy to completely avoid debating the climate science altogether.”
Parenteau continued, “Instead, they chose to attack climate science, which provoked a massive backlash from the scientific community. Now, they face the daunting task of meticulously responding to every single comment. Any attempt to dismiss or inadequately address these responses creates a legal weakness. Courts will likely be highly skeptical if the EPA tries to disregard or reject the National Academies’ scientific findings.”