New Report Highlights Health Risks from Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) published a report on Wednesday detailing the public health threats posed by greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of reversing its 2009 findings regarding these dangers. They had previously determined that carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions represent risks to both human health and the environment. In response, NASEM conducted a review to address these concerns. Some energy policy experts have suggested that earlier risk assessments lacked robust evidence and have stunted consumer choices, yet they also acknowledged that GHG emissions are on the rise, perpetuating climate change.

“This review feels more like a political maneuver than a scientific one. The National Academy is using its own funding to sway the EPA, even though federal agencies didn’t specifically ask for this,” said one critic. “It’s not science; it’s advocacy.”

The NASEM report argues that recent studies back the EPA’s earlier 2009 conclusions, mentioning that climate change could worsen ozone pollution and lead to more respiratory health issues. It also connects air pollution to increased instances of mood and psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia and suicide.

“The evidence indicating ongoing and future harm to human health related to GHG emissions overshadows any scientific disputes. Many uncertainties about climate change noted in earlier assessments have been resolved, and new risks have emerged,” the report stated.

NASEM has a historic mission to investigate scientific fields, established by Congress in 1863. Interestingly, despite calls for research on the origins of Covid-19, NASEM has not engaged in this area. The recent GHG report appears to have been generated as a public comment for the EPA’s review process.

The report was “self-funded” through NASEM’s own resources, as indicated on their website.

Some experts from the energy sector expressed concern that NASEM’s reports are being rushed. “The fact that the National Academy could produce a report so soon after the EPA’s findings raises questions about its legitimacy,” said a senior fellow from the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, who also pointed out alleged inaccuracies in the NASEM report, mentioning that it seems to favor a particular perspective without including diverse scientific views. Normally, it takes around 21 months to produce a report like this, yet this one was published in just over a month.

The review was led by molecular biologist Shirley M. Tilghman, who has ties to various progressive consulting networks.

The EPA recently announced that it plans to retract the Obama-era findings on greenhouse gases. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin noted that this decision aligns with what he referred to as a historic move away from substantial regulation. He emphasized that the EPA aims to support both human health and economic growth.

Some critics contend that the National Academy’s efforts distort science for political ends. “Their rapid timeline indicates a push driven by ideology rather than rigorous scientific inquiry,” one critic stated.

The EPA maintains that it must operate within the bounds set by Congress concerning GHG regulations. They noted that the findings used by previous administrations justified extensive regulations affecting new vehicles.

On the same day as the EPA’s announcement, the Department of Energy (DOE) released its own report on climate change, with Secretary Chris Wright framing energy poverty as a pressing issue, even while acknowledging that climate change is a significant challenge.

A different energy expert expressed skepticism regarding the NASEM report, suggesting it has a clear left-leaning bias aimed at undermining President Trump’s deregulatory actions.

Concerns have also been raised about NASEM’s potential “partisan objectives” connected to the report, prompting calls from lawmakers for more transparency regarding funding and communications about this research.

The National Academies’ findings seem to confirm the positions of those who already align with the environmental agenda, according to some watchdog group leaders.

NASEM and Tilghman did not respond to requests for comments.