The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has released a pivotal report, providing the most compelling evidence yet that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane pose a significant threat to human health.
This new assessment from the National Academies is a critical development, potentially disrupting the Trump administration’s attempts to overturn the ‘endangerment finding’—a crucial scientific basis that empowers the federal government to regulate climate-altering pollution.
Established in 2009 by the Environmental Protection Agency, the endangerment finding declared that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, mandating their regulation under the Clean Air Act. Both the Obama and Biden administrations leveraged this finding to enforce stringent limits on emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other industries.
However, the Trump administration recently moved to revoke this finding, claiming that newer research undermines its scientific validity.
The National Academies’ new 136-page report, compiled by two dozen scientists, directly refutes these arguments. It affirms the original endangerment finding’s accuracy, stating it ‘has stood the test of time,’ and presents even more robust evidence of rising greenhouse gas levels threatening public health and uncovering additional dangers.
The report highlights overwhelming evidence: human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are releasing greenhouse gases that warm the planet. This, in turn, intensifies health hazards such as severe heatwaves and greater wildfire smoke. Furthermore, shifts in climate patterns are negatively impacting crop yields and water resources in various regions.
Established by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine serves as an independent advisory body on scientific and medical matters. This esteemed organization produces around 200 reports annually, covering diverse fields from physics to neuroscience, with its members elected based on merit.
To directly influence the EPA’s review process, the National Academies expedited its endangerment finding study in August. Federal law requires the EPA to solicit and address all public comments on its proposal to withdraw the finding.
Some Republican lawmakers, including Representative James Comer, criticized the National Academies for expediting the report, calling it a ‘partisan act’ against the Trump administration and alleging bias among its oversight members.
The report’s committee was chaired by Shirley Tilghman, a distinguished emeritus professor from Princeton. Comprising mostly academics, it also notably included individuals with industry backgrounds from companies like Chevron and Cummins.
Dr. Tilghman stated that the study’s primary goal was to provide the EPA with robust scientific evidence to guide its decision-making regarding the endangerment finding, emphasizing the strength of the summarized research.
EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran countered, arguing that the endangerment finding has been used to justify immense spending on greenhouse gas regulations and that many of the EPA’s initial ‘pessimistic predictions’ from 16 years ago haven’t materialized.
Holran added that the EPA looks forward to addressing all varied viewpoints on this matter before the public comment period concludes on September 22.
This move to revoke the endangerment finding represents a major attempt by President Trump to undermine federal climate initiatives. Should it withstand legal challenges, future administrations would lose their Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.
The EPA’s justification for its proposal included various legal and technical arguments, such as the claim that U.S. vehicle emissions constitute only a minor portion of global greenhouse gas output.
Beyond legalities, the agency also challenged the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change’s risks to humanity. They referred to a report commissioned by the Energy Department, written by five researchers, selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who hold dissenting views. This report, while acknowledging global warming, downplayed its economic impact.
A collective of over 85 scientists issued a detailed 439-page rebuttal, asserting that the Energy Department’s analysis was flawed and manipulated data to align with the president’s political objectives.
Meanwhile, two environmental organizations have sued, alleging the Energy Department’s working group formation violated federal law and that the EPA should not consider its analysis. The lawsuit is still active.
Energy Secretary Wright dissolved the working group after the lawsuit, but the Energy Department confirmed it has no intention of retracting its controversial report.
Andrea Woods, an Energy Department spokesperson, stated that the working group fulfilled its goal of sparking a wider discussion on climate science’s certainties and uncertainties, adding that the department advocates for a more scientific, less ideological debate on the topic.
According to legal experts, the Trump administration’s challenge to established climate science could significantly hinder its deregulation efforts in court.
Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, suggested that avoiding direct confrontation with climate science arguments might have been a more effective strategy for the administration.
Parenteau further warned that by attacking climate science, the administration provoked a massive scientific backlash, requiring careful responses to all comments. Any perceived dismissal of these comments, especially those from the National Academies of Sciences, would create a significant legal weakness, making courts hesitant to support the EPA’s stance.