Republicans Question Funding and Impartiality of National Academies Climate Review
Congressional Republicans are scrutinizing a fast-tracked climate review initiated by the National academies of Science, alleging potential bias and seeking transparency regarding its funding. The review was launched in August following the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to rely on a Department of Energy (DOE) climate report as justification for revisiting its 2009 findings on greenhouse gas endangerment.
Representative James Comer (R-Ky.),chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,announced an investigation into the National Academies,calling the review “a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration.” Comer has requested a range of documents from the academies to address his concerns.
Specifically, Comer’s office has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest within the study panel. He pointed to the study’s leadership, noting one member’s role as an external advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance, which has financial connections to the progressive advocacy group Arabella Advisors through the New Venture Fund. The New Venture Fund supports various progressive causes, including climate litigation. Comer also highlighted that another panel member publicly endorsed former President Biden’s climate policies.
“The study is led by a National Academies member who serves as an external advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance, which has ties to the left-wing group Arabella Advisors through the New Venture Fund, an association that promotes a variety of progressive causes and funds major climate litigation,” Comer stated in a letter to the National Academies. He also expressed concern about the source of funding for the study itself.
The National Academies initiated the expedited review, aiming to complete it before the EPA closes its public comment period on its proposal regarding greenhouse gas regulations. The review intends to provide an analysis of climate risks based on mainstream scientific consensus, contrasting with the DOE report used by the EPA.
This scrutiny comes after previous criticism of the National Academies for its initial silence in response to the Trump administration’s challenges to established scientific findings.The outcome of the review could significantly impact the EPA’s planned actions and the legal basis for its climate regulations.
