NASEM Report Highlights GHG Emissions and Public Health Risk

On Wednesday, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) published a report discussing the risks posed by greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to public health.

In a related move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated it plans to revise the findings made in 2009 regarding these dangers. Initially, it was determined that GHGs, especially those containing carbon dioxide, could have harmful effects on both human health and the environment. In light of this, NASEM compiled a review, suggesting that prior risk assessments lacked robust evidence and were used primarily to restrict consumer choices. Yet, it’s noted that GHG emissions have been on the rise, contributing to climate change.

One critique came from an unnamed expert, who described the NASEM’s latest review as a political maneuver rather than a genuine scientific assessment. The individual argued that using internal funds to persuade the EPA, especially when no request for such a review was made by federal agencies, compromises the report’s integrity. This seems, perhaps, a little ironic, given the emphasis on independent science.

The new NASEM report asserts that recent scientific literature backs up the EPA’s earlier 2009 conclusions. It warns that climate change could worsen ozone pollution and elevate the risk of respiratory ailments. Furthermore, air pollution is linked to an increase in mood disorders and mental health issues, including schizophrenia and suicide.

The report’s findings suggest a growing consensus on the health impacts of GHGs, even as uncertainties that existed back in 2009 have largely been addressed. It emphasizes that the potential for harm to health and welfare surpasses any scientific disagreements.

NASEM, established in 1863, was tasked with investigating scientific subjects at the government’s behest. Interestingly, it has faced calls for research into the origins of Covid-19 but has not conducted such studies, leading to some criticism about its focus.

The report was financed entirely by NASEM. Some experts in the energy sector have raised concerns about the speed of the report’s publication, suggesting that it reflects a hurried process. Steve Milloy from the Energy & Environment Legal Institute commented that the rapid turnaround—less than two months—was unusual and possibly indicative of bias, as he noted the absence of atmospheric science experts in the committee that produced the report.

This review was led by Shirley M. Tilghman, a molecular biologist associated with progressive funding networks. The EPA’s announcement about retracting aspects of the Obama-era findings came amid significant political debate. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin indicated that this move represents a significant regulatory shift.

In defense of their actions, the EPA asserted that it is bound by existing legislation and that previous danger discoveries have supported far-reaching regulations over the years. Public comments on the recent proposal are welcomed until late September, reflecting a desire for diverse perspectives.

Coinciding with this announcement, the Department of Energy (DOE) released its own report outlining the impacts of climate change. Energy Secretary Chris Wright positioned energy poverty as an urgent threat, even while acknowledging climate concerns.

Some, like Heartland Institute President James Taylor, worry that the NASEM report reflects an ideological bias aimed at undermining deregulation efforts. He criticized the National Academy for no longer acting purely as a scientific body but rather as a bureaucratic entity with a political agenda.

James Kommer from the House Committee on Surveillance and Government Reform is scrutinizing NASEM for possible partisan interests and has requested detailed communications related to the endangered rules and funding sources.

Critics suggest that the NASEM review’s conclusions seem predetermined, echoing sentiments prevalent in various environmental movements. NASEM and Tilghman did not respond to requests for commentary on these issues.