Unraveling Climate Leadership: How the White House is Shaking the Foundations of US Climate Policy

In April, an email shocked nearly 400 scientists involved in the National Climate Assessment (NCA). It informed them that their roles were being reevaluated and that they were dismissed, all while the government reviews how global warming affects the US. Elizabeth Koebele, an environmental social scientist from the University of Nevada, Reno, was one of those affected. She was surprised, having worked hard on the assessment for over six months.

Koebele recalls receiving the email in the afternoon. She and her colleagues were already aware of some challenges, like layoffs among staff, but not the complete dismissal of all authors. Another scientist, upon reading the email, turned to the social network Bluesky. There, many others shared their dismay.

Under the Trump administration, the future of the NCA seemed uncertain. Actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggested a push to disregard the scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change. For example, on June 30, the government removed the Global Change Research Program’s website, which housed crucial reports, including past NCAs.

Melissa Finucane, vice president of science and innovation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, highlighted concerns over the administration potentially shifting towards “junk science.” Striving for clarity, she mused on what could replace the NCA if it isn’t produced: “What will fill the void?”

Historically, NCAs have been essential. They provided the scientific basis for regulations like the 2009 endangerment finding, which recognized greenhouse gases as harmful. If this finding is overturned, it could remove the federal government’s ability to regulate such emissions—something that could happen if the administration successfully argues that these gases do not pose a danger.

Expert opinions reiterate the importance of sound science in these assessments. Andy Miller, a former senior science adviser for the EPA, noted that overturning the endangerment finding would require a strong scientific basis. Such efforts face considerable obstacles, as very few credible scientists would endorse the view that greenhouse gases aren’t harmful.

With Congress having the final say on whether to move forward with the NCA, its future is rocky. The Global Change Research Act mandates these assessments, but history shows that timelines can stretch. The upcoming NCA is expected to be delivered by 2028, but without Congressional oversight and funding, its completion could falter.

Many scientists are left reeling from abrupt changes and worry about the integrity of future assessments. As Koebele expressed, she and her fellow authors are eager to stay engaged if the NCA process resumes.

Ultimately, the credibility of climate assessments hangs in a delicate balance, making the actions taken by the government decisive in shaping future environmental policies. Public discourse and scientific integrity are vital to maintaining trust in how we address climate change.

For more in-depth insights on climate science, refer to recent findings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Source link