National Academies Accelerate New Climate Change Report
▼ Summary
– The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are conducting an accelerated, independent review of climate science to inform policymakers before a critical EPA decision on greenhouse gas regulations.
– The study, funded by the Academies themselves, breaks from standard protocol and aims to deliver findings by September, aligning with the EPA’s reconsideration of the 2009 “endangerment finding.”
– The Trump administration seeks to revoke the 2009 ruling, which would undermine legal grounds for regulating carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, citing contested scientific uncertainties.
– Experts, including former EPA officials, applaud the Academies’ intervention as a nonpartisan counter to politicized science, emphasizing its credibility and timeliness.
– The review is part of the Academies’ rapid-response initiative and could play a decisive role in the ongoing clash between scientific consensus and political agendas.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have launched an accelerated review of current climate science, aiming to provide policymakers with critical insights ahead of a pivotal Environmental Protection Agency decision. The independent study, funded by the Academies themselves rather than at the government’s request, marks a rare departure from their standard protocol. Findings are expected by September, coinciding with the EPA’s reconsideration of the 2009 “endangerment finding” that established greenhouse gases as threats to public health and the environment.
Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, emphasized the urgency of grounding policy in rigorous research. “Federal decisions must reflect the most advanced scientific understanding,” she stated, noting that decades of climate data demand fresh evaluation. The Academies, operating under a congressional charter dating back to Abraham Lincoln, specialize in delivering impartial analysis to guide national policy.
The Trump administration’s push to revoke the endangerment finding, announced last month, would dismantle the legal foundation for regulating carbon emissions from vehicles and power plants under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has openly targeted climate regulations enacted during the Biden era, and overturning the 2009 determination would streamline those efforts. While the EPA’s proposal leans heavily on legal arguments, it also references scientific uncertainties, citing a contested Department of Energy report authored by climate skeptics.
Critics welcomed the Academies’ intervention. Bob Sussman, a former EPA official under both Clinton and Obama, praised the move as essential for countering politicized science. “This fills a glaring gap, independent expertise free from ideological influence,” he remarked. Sussman had earlier called for a high-level reassessment of climate science, recalling the Academies’ 2001 review at the Bush administration’s request.
The fast-tracked study aligns with the Academies’ 2023 initiative to tackle pressing scientific policy questions swiftly. Their first rapid-response project assessed avian influenza diagnostics. Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University argued the climate debate perfectly suits this approach. “The Academies exist to resolve exactly these disputes, with authority, not fringe viewpoints,” he said, contrasting their review with the DOE’s controversial panel.
Dessler is coordinating a separate scientific rebuttal to the DOE report, gathering input from dozens of researchers. While the Academies’ scope focuses on post-2009 evidence of greenhouse gas impacts, Dessler’s effort zeroes in on countering what he calls the administration’s “outlier” science. Both projects underscore the high stakes as the EPA’s 30-day public comment period unfolds.
The Academies’ involvement injects weight into a debate where scientific credibility clashes with political agendas. Their findings could prove decisive as the administration moves to reshape the nation’s climate policies.
(Source: Ars Technica)
