The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recently made a bold statement: greenhouse gas emissions are harmful to both humans and the environment. Their report, released on September 17, directly disagrees with claims from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which suggests that evidence of this harm has weakened since 2009.
In 2009, the EPA issued an “endangerment finding,” which established the basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. However, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin contends that new observations indicate a decline in the dangers posed by these emissions. This has raised eyebrows, especially since NASEM argues that the understanding of climate change has actually deepened in the last 14 years.
According to NASEM, the scientific community has gathered even more solid evidence regarding the risks of climate change. The report notes that many uncertainties that existed in 2009 have since been resolved, and new threats have emerged.
When pressed about the contradictions between NASEM’s findings and the EPA’s claims, EPA spokesperson Brigit Hirsch highlighted concerns over the costs of greenhouse gas regulations during previous administrations. She mentioned that several dire predictions made by the EPA have not come true, though her statements did not clarify how they relate to NASEM’s findings.
The EPA recently decided to base its proposal to revoke the endangerment finding on a report from the U.S. Department of Energy, developed by a group known for their denial of climate change. Critics argue that this report is misleading and uses faulty assumptions. It received over 59,500 comments during its public review period, highlighting significant public concern.
In contrast, NASEM undertook an independent review using contemporary climate science to inform its findings. Shirley Tilghman, chair of the NASEM committee, emphasized that their report aims to guide the EPA as it considers the status of the endangerment finding. The report has also served as a public comment to the EPA’s proposal.
As of September 18, the EPA has received over 105,000 comments on its proposed changes to the endangerment finding. With the public comment period closing soon, the implications of NASEM’s findings are significant. Experts like Andy Miller, a former EPA adviser, stress that the EPA needs to base any new decisions on solid scientific evidence. Changes in policy must be supported by equally strong or stronger evidence than what originally informed the existing regulations.
The debate is not just academic; it reflects a larger conversation about climate action. Historical comparisons reveal that public concern and scientific understanding of climate issues have evolved. As social media continues to amplify discussions on environmental changes, many users share personal stories, linking them to broader climate trends.
In a time of growing urgency around climate change, it’s clear the science is advancing, and the call for informed decision-making is louder than ever. As NASEM puts it, there’s now a “strong base of scientific evidence” that should inform policies impacting health and environmental safety.
For more detailed insights, you can check NASEM’s official report and the EPA’s documentation.
Source link
greenhouse gases,regulation,EPA,Environmental Protection Agency,Endangerment finding,National Academies of Science,National Academies of Sciences,Engineering,and Medicine,Climate change,GHG emissions,greenhouse gas emissions,Lee Zeldin,climate science report,climate science,NAS,NASEM,NAS climate report,NASEM climate report
