On Wednesday, the country’s foremost scientific advisory body released a significant report, presenting the strongest evidence yet that planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide and methane pose a direct threat to human health.
Published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, this report is crucial. It threatens to complicate the Trump administration’s attempts to overturn a pivotal scientific decision, the ‘endangerment finding,’ which grants the federal government the legal power to regulate climate-altering pollution.
The endangerment finding, established in 2009, determined that greenhouse gases jeopardized public health and welfare, thus falling under the regulatory scope of the Clean Air Act. Both the Obama and Biden administrations subsequently utilized this finding to impose rigorous limits on emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other major industrial polluters.
However, in July, the Trump administration moved to revoke this endangerment finding, claiming that newer research had ‘cast significant doubt’ on its scientific validity.
This new assessment from the National Academies directly refutes those assertions. The comprehensive 136-page report, compiled by a committee of twenty-four scientists, firmly concludes that the initial endangerment finding remains accurate and ‘has stood the test of time.’ It further highlights even more compelling evidence that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations continue to endanger public health and well-being, revealing previously unknown risks.
The report underscores that extensive evidence consistently demonstrates human activities, particularly fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, are escalating greenhouse gas levels and warming the planet. This climate change intensifies numerous health dangers, including severe heat waves and more widespread wildfire smoke. Furthermore, shifts in temperature and rainfall driven by climate change are causing adverse impacts on agriculture and reducing water supplies in various regions.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is an independent organization, established by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, tasked with providing scientific and medical guidance to the nation. This prestigious body releases approximately 200 reports annually, covering diverse fields from particle physics to neurobiology, with its members chosen through an annual election process.
Back in August, the National Academies accelerated its study on the endangerment finding, aiming to provide timely input for the E.P.A.’s decision-making. Federal law mandates that the E.P.A. must gather public comments on any proposal to revoke the finding and then meticulously address every comment received.
However, some Republican members of Congress criticized the National Academies’ expedited timeline. Representative James Comer of Kentucky, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, stated in a recent letter that this rush was ‘a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration,’ alleging ‘partisan bias’ among some report supervisors.
The report’s oversight committee was chaired by Shirley Tilghman, an emeritus professor of molecular biology and public affairs and former Princeton University president. Though primarily comprising academics, the committee also notably included a former Chevron employee and a former executive from Cummins, a leading truck engine manufacturer.
Dr. Tilghman stated, ‘This study was conducted with the primary goal of informing the E.P.A. as it evaluates the endangerment finding, in response to their public comment request. We trust that the presented evidence provides a robust scientific foundation for informed policy decisions.’
In reaction, E.P.A. spokeswoman Carolyn Holran countered, ‘The endangerment finding has historically served as justification for trillions of dollars in greenhouse gas regulations by past administrations, targeting new vehicles and engines. Yet, over the 16 years since its inception, many of the E.P.A.’s dire predictions and assumptions haven’t come to pass as anticipated.’
She added that the E.P.A. is ‘eager to address a wide range of viewpoints on this matter’ before the public comment period concludes on September 22nd.
President Trump’s plan to undo the endangerment finding represents one of his administration’s most aggressive moves to dismantle federal climate initiatives. Should this action withstand legal challenges, it would strip future administrations of the Clean Air Act’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.
To bolster its proposal, the E.P.A. presented several legal and technical arguments, including the claim that emissions from U.S. vehicles constitute only a tiny fraction of total global greenhouse gas output.
Beyond legal technicalities, the agency also challenged the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change poses substantial risks to humanity. They referred to a report commissioned by the Energy Department, authored by five prominent researchers who hold dissenting views on climate science. These individuals, handpicked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, acknowledged global warming but concluded that its economic impact is ‘less damaging economically than commonly believed.’
In a stark rebuttal, over 85 scientists co-authored a 439-page response, asserting that the Energy Department’s analysis was flawed with errors and selectively presented data to align with the president’s political objectives.
Concurrently, two environmental organizations launched a federal lawsuit, alleging that the Energy Department’s working group was illegally formed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and therefore its analysis should not be considered by the E.P.A. This legal battle is still unfolding.
Secretary Wright dissolved the working group this month following the lawsuit. However, the Energy Department has indicated it will not retract its report.
Energy Department spokeswoman Andrea Woods commented that the agency believes the working group fulfilled its purpose: ‘to stimulate a wider discussion on the certainties and uncertainties of current climate science. We are committed to fostering a more scientific, less ideological discourse on this topic.’
According to some legal experts, the Trump administration’s efforts to dispute established climate science could severely hamper its deregulatory agenda in court.
Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, suggested, ‘They might have been wiser to avoid challenging the climate science arguments entirely.’
He elaborated, ‘Instead, they’ve attacked climate science, provoking a massive scientific backlash. Now, they must meticulously address every comment, and any oversight could expose them to legal challenges. Courts will likely scrutinize the E.P.A. closely if it dismisses or disregards the National Academies’ findings.’