The tension between the current Trump administration and the scientific community is entering a new chapter. A new, opaque, parallel advisory group has been formed, and the government has been exploiting this to circumvent legal procedures. This situation currently conflicts with the scientific consensus regarding greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the climate crisis. This strategy seeks to create regulatory loopholes to justify a rollback of environmental policies.
Environmental groups sue government over secret climate report
Two major environmental groups announced on Tuesday they have sued the Trump administration for secretly convening a group of climate skeptics, which prepared a report that served as the basis for a reversal of U.S. rules on greenhouse gas emissions without public notice. The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed the lawsuit in a federal district court in Massachusetts, arguing that the so-called Climate Working Group that Energy Secretary Chris Wright put together, evaded public view, delivered erroneous results and was illegally used to inform the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reverse the scientific finding that served as the foundation for federal climate regulation.
The lawsuit names Wright and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin as defendants. Both were not immediately available for comment. The preparation and use of the report has raised concern that the United States is rejecting the mainstream consensus about the causes and impacts of climate change at a time that more severe storms and record-breaking temperatures cause trillions of dollars in damage around the country.
The lack of public disclosure regarding the group’s composition and objectives directly violates legally established transparency standards. There are numerous accusations that the report produced by this group distorted scientific evidence, presenting arguments aligned with climate denial.
Impacts of climate misinformation
The release of climate data has been halted due to the closure of federal data collection programs, exacerbating the situation by limiting researchers’ ability to plan mitigation and adaptation measures for the current climate. This reduced visibility of scientific evidence opens the door to political decisions based on economic interests, particularly those linked to the gas and oil sector.
Downplaying the impacts of climate change and eliminating U.S. climate data collection and reports also takes away the urgency for the U.S. to shift away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy. Through the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Congress requires public disclosure and public records in the establishment and operation of any federal advisory committee.
“Decades of rigorous scientific analysis shows burning fossil fuels is unequivocally contributing to deadly heat waves, accelerating sea level rise, worsening wildfires and floods, increased heavy rainfall, and more intense and damaging storms across the country. We should all relentlessly question who stands to gain from efforts to upend this unassailable and peer-reviewed scientific truth,” said Gretchen Goldman, president of UCS.
Lawsuits and scientific resistance
The legal battle, for the organizations, is not just about reversing recent decisions, but also about ensuring that any future action is based on real climate policies, following transparent processes and supported by solid science.
Understand what’s at risk for environmental policies
If the courts fail to prevent the use of these irregular reports, there will be a structural weakening of environmental policy making, compromising the country’s ability to respond to the climate crisis. This could even end up affecting international commitments, such as investments in clean energy, and the United States’ own scientific credibility on the global stage.
All that remains is to monitor the outcome of this process, which could determine the future of regulatory actions and the standard of transparency and scientific integrity, with the responsibility of governing future environmental decisions in the country. This is a critical moment in which climate protection and respect for science and its professionals must prevail over political strategies.
GCN.com/Reuters