Not completing the review process would leave the EPA vulnerable to allegations that it relied on an incomplete draft report for its scientific justification. So while the DOE’s tactic may protect some of its internal documents, it could ultimately cause bigger problems for the Trump administration’s program.
Attacking academies
Earlier this year, we criticized the National Academies of Sciences for their apparent refusal to respond to the Trump administration’s attacks on science. That reticence seemed to end in August with the release of the DOE climate report and the EPA’s announcement that it was using the report as the latest word on climate science, which it said had changed significantly since the EPA’s initial decisions on the issue in 2009.
In response, the National Academies announced that it would fast-track a new analysis of the risks posed by greenhouse gases, conducted by top scientists, not some fringe figure. The goal was to do so before the EPA closed its public comment period on its proposal to ignore greenhouse gases.
This is clearly a threat to the EPA’s planned actions, which apparently prompted Republicans in Congress to intervene. This month, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), announced he was investigating the National Academies for producing the report, calling it “a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump administration.”
Comer has also sent a letter to the National Academies outlining his concerns and requesting various documents. Some of it is quite complicated: “The study is being led by a National Academies member who serves as an outside advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance, which has ties to the left-wing group Arabella Advisors, through the New Venture Fund, an organization that promotes various progressive causes and funds major climate litigation,” says Comer, who notes that it’s not entirely clear. Another member of the study’s panel had the confidence to endorse former President Biden on his climate policies. Separately, Comer says he’s concerned about the source of the funds that will pay for the study.
