A groundbreaking report released Wednesday by the nation’s foremost scientific advisory body, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, presents the most compelling evidence yet that planet-warming greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane pose a significant threat to human health.
This pivotal document, from the esteemed National Academies, is expected to create considerable challenges for the Trump administration. The administration has been actively working to overturn a crucial scientific judgment, known as the endangerment finding, which serves as the fundamental legal basis for federal regulation of climate-altering pollution.
Established in 2009 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the endangerment finding declared that greenhouse gases, which warm our planet, endanger public health and well-being, necessitating regulation under the Clean Air Act. This critical determination allowed both the Obama and Biden administrations to enforce rigorous limits on greenhouse gas emissions from various sources, including vehicles, power plants, and industrial facilities.
However, in July, the Trump administration moved to revoke the endangerment finding, arguing that newer research had supposedly “cast significant doubt” on its scientific validity.
This latest 136-page report from the National Academies, compiled by a committee of twenty-four scientists, directly refutes these claims. It asserts that the original endangerment finding was not only accurate but “has stood the test of time.” The new assessment presents even more robust evidence of how escalating greenhouse gas levels imperil public health and welfare, highlighting previously unknown dangers.
The report underscores that extensive scientific evidence now conclusively demonstrates that human actions, such as burning fossil fuels and widespread deforestation, are driving the increase in greenhouse gases, leading to a warmer planet. This climate change, in turn, intensifies numerous health hazards, including severe heat waves and more pervasive wildfire smoke. Furthermore, shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns due to climate change are causing adverse impacts on agricultural yields and reducing water availability in many regions, alongside other critical disruptions.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is an independent, non-governmental organization established by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to provide expert scientific and medical advice to the nation. This highly influential institution releases approximately 200 reports annually, covering a vast spectrum of subjects from particle physics to neurobiology, with its members elected based on distinguished achievements.
Notably, in August, the National Academies expedited this study on the endangerment finding to ensure its findings could inform the EPA’s ongoing decision-making. Federal law mandates that the EPA solicit and thoroughly respond to all public comments regarding its proposal to rescind the finding.
This expedited process drew criticism from some Republican members of Congress. Representative James Comer of Kentucky, a key Republican on the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter to the National Academies, accusing them of a “blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration” and claiming that some members involved in the report exhibited “partisan bias.”
The report’s oversight committee was chaired by Shirley Tilghman, an emeritus professor of molecular biology and public affairs and former president of Princeton University. Although predominantly composed of academics, the committee’s membership also notably included a former employee from Chevron and a past executive from Cummins, a prominent truck engine manufacturer, ensuring a breadth of perspectives.
Dr. Tilghman stated that “This study was conducted with the primary goal of providing information to the E.P.A., in response to its request for public comments, as it reviews the endangerment finding. We are hopeful that the evidence presented here offers a robust scientific foundation for informed decision-making.”
In reaction to the report, EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran countered that “The endangerment finding has served as the justification for trillions of dollars in greenhouse gas regulations by the Obama and Biden administrations, impacting new motor vehicles and engines. However, over the 16 years since its inception, many of the EPA’s initial, highly pessimistic forecasts and assumptions have simply not come to pass.”
She added that the EPA “eagerly anticipates addressing the wide range of viewpoints on this matter” before the public comment period concludes on September 22nd.
The Trump administration’s effort to repeal the endangerment finding represents one of its most substantial actions to dismantle federal climate initiatives. Should this repeal withstand legal challenges, it would effectively strip future administrations of the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.
The EPA’s proposal relies on diverse legal and technical arguments, including the assertion that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. vehicles constitute only a minor fraction of global emissions.
Beyond legal and technical points, the agency also challenged the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change presents a substantial threat to humanity. It referenced a report commissioned by the Energy Department, authored by a select group of five researchers known for their dissent from mainstream climate science. These individuals, personally chosen by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, produced a report that, while acknowledging global warming, concluded that its economic impacts are “less damaging economically than commonly believed.”
In stark contrast, over 85 scientists co-authored a 439-page rebuttal, asserting that the Energy Department’s analysis was flawed with errors and selectively presented data to align with the President’s political agenda.
Concurrently, two environmental organizations initiated a federal lawsuit, alleging that the Energy Department’s working group was illegally formed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and that the EPA should therefore not consider its findings. This legal challenge is still in progress.
Following the lawsuit, Secretary Wright disbanded the working group this month. However, the Energy Department has indicated it does not intend to retract its report.
Andrea Woods, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, released a statement explaining that the agency concluded the working group had fulfilled its mission: “to stimulate a wider discussion about the knowns and unknowns in contemporary climate science. We are committed to fostering a more science-driven and less ideologically charged dialogue on climate issues.”
Legal scholars suggest that the Trump administration’s strategy of disputing well-established climate science could significantly hinder its deregulation efforts in court.
Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, remarked, “They might have been better off avoiding arguments about climate science entirely.”
He further elaborated, “Instead, they’ve directly attacked climate science, provoking a massive backlash from the scientific community. Now, they face the arduous task of meticulously responding to every single one of these comments. Any inadequate response would create a legal weak point. Courts will undoubtedly be highly skeptical if the EPA attempts to dismiss or disregard the findings of the National Academies of Sciences.”
Brad Plumer is a reporter for The Times, focusing on technological advancements and policy initiatives aimed at combating global warming.