One of the United States’ most respected scientific bodies rejected claims from Trump administration officials that rising temperatures posed little danger, saying on Wednesday the scientific evidence of climate change was “beyond scientific dispute” and that impacts on the nation are worsening.
The conclusion from the the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine differs starkly from a draft report issued by the Energy Department in July, in which a panel of scientists known for their contrarian views argued that the risks of climate change have been overblown.
The nonprofit National Academies advise the government on scientific issues.
In sharp contrast to the Trump administration’s report, NASEM’s 135-page review of climate science says that our understanding of climate science has only improved since EPA in 2009 formally declared greenhouse gases a threat to human health and welfare.
That includes long-term observations that “confirm unequivocally” that human emissions are warming the planet, that climate change is already harming the health and welfare of U.S. citizens and that the severity of climate change increases “with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted.”
“Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved and new threats have been identified,” the report concluded. “These new threats and the areas of remaining uncertainty are under intensive investigation by the scientific community. The United States faces a future in which climate-induced harm continues to worsen and today’s extremes become tomorrow’s norms.”
The report comes as the Trump administration has broadly sought to repeal most climate regulations and instead boost fossil fuel production.
“This has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in July of his proposal to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding.
EPA’s proposal was premised primarily on legal arguments that it had no authority to act under the Clean Air Act, with questions about the science around climate change forming a secondary justification. NASEM’s report doesn’t address EPA’s legal authority under that landmark environmental law or other factors the agency uses when considering whether and how to regulate.
NASEM independently launched the “fast-track” review in early August, shortly after EPA proposed rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding based in part on the DOE report. The goal was to produce a review of climate science that could be submitted to EPA during its comment period, which ends Sept. 22.
“We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making,” Shirley Tilghman, a former president of Princeton University and a biologist by training who chaired the committee that wrote the report, said in a statement.
The report is the latest from academics and professional organizations to criticize the DOE review of climate science. Groups like the American Meteorological Society slammed DOE for failing to follow basic scientific principles designed to eliminate bias.
The July DOE report largely rejected the effects rising greenhouse gas emissions have had on the planet. Contrary to evidence, the report downplayed or questioned the role those gases have had on pushing temperatures higher, expanding wildfire seasons and worsening coastal flooding and largely downplaying the costs those extremes pose to health, property, ecosystems and the U.S. economy.
Wright formally disbanded the DOE climate working group on Sept. 3, according to a federal court filing. That move came as DOE faced litigation for allegedly violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act in the group’s composition and activities.
NASEM said it did not cite DOE’s report in its own work because the it is still only a draft and could change before being finalized, although it is unclear whether DOE will do so now.
House Republicans earlier this month launched a broadside at NASEM over the review, calling it “a blatant partisan act to undermine” the Trump administration and questioning the report committee’s membership and rapid timeline. National Academies President Marcia McNutt called the criticisms “ludicrous” given the DOE study was written in private and by people hand-picked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel CEO.
The committee’s members were largely drawn from academia but included former Chevron employee Arthur Lee and John Wall, a former executive at engine maker Cummins. Tilghman was chosen to chair the panel to provide “a more neutral perspective” on climate science, NASEM said.
Zack Colman contributed to this report.
