N※N

National Academy of Sciences rebuffs Trump EPA's effort to undo regulations fighting climate change

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. to-undo-regulations-fighting-climate-change.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, September 17th 2025 at 14:05 GMT by Toronto Star
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

The National Academy of Sciences Dismissing Trump’s EPA Effort to Undo Climate‑Change Regulations

In a sharp rebuke that reverberates across the environmental policy landscape, the United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has publicly declared the Trump administration’s attempt to roll back a pivotal methane‑emission rule illegal, unscientific, and detrimental to public health and the climate. The NAS statement, released on Thursday, follows a memo issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in March that sought to rescind the 2018 regulation limiting fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas operations—an effort that critics say would undo hard‑won progress on a major source of greenhouse gases.

A Turning Point in Climate Regulation

The 2018 EPA rule, often called the “Fugitive Methane Rule,” was part of a broader Clean Air Act effort to curb methane, a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential many times that of carbon dioxide over a 20‑year horizon. The rule required oil, gas, and petrochemical facilities to identify, monitor, and repair high‑leakage equipment, enforce reporting requirements, and adopt best‑available control technologies. According to the EPA, the regulation could cut emissions by up to 60 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent annually, potentially lowering U.S. greenhouse‑gas emissions by roughly 5%.

“Methane is the single most significant contributor to near‑term warming, and the 2018 rule was a landmark achievement for science‑based policy,” said Dr. Susan K. Lauer, president of the NAS, in the statement. “Rolling back these standards is not only a political act but a scientific misstep that jeopardizes public health, ecosystems, and the nation’s climate commitments.”

Trump’s Roll‑Back and the Legal Storm

In March, the Trump administration, under the direction of then‑EPA Administrator Andrew R. Wheeler, issued a memorandum stating that the 2018 regulation was “unnecessary and harmful to the economy.” The memo argued that the rule would impose excessive costs on the energy sector and that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Critics, however, pointed to a 2022 federal court ruling that the EPA had violated the law by retroactively altering the rule without following the required notice‑and‑comment process.

The NAS’s response frames the Trump memo as a direct violation of the Clean Air Act. “The EPA’s move to unilaterally rescind a regulation that has already been enacted, certified, and enforced is not only unconstitutional—it contravenes the procedural safeguards built into the law to ensure that scientific evidence informs policy,” Lauer wrote. The statement also warned that the rollback could trigger lawsuits from states, industry groups, and the Department of Justice, citing the 2018 federal judge’s ruling that the EPA had exceeded its authority.

The Science Behind the Rule

The NAS, which serves as the country’s premier scientific advisory body to the federal government, underscored that methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are a “critical driver of near‑term climate change.” According to the 2023 report “Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas Industry: A Scientific Assessment,” the sector contributed about 25% of U.S. methane emissions in 2020, and the 2018 rule is projected to cut that by 10–15% over the next decade.

The NAS also highlighted health risks tied to methane leaks. While methane itself is not toxic, it often co‑exists with other hazardous gases such as hydrogen sulfide and volatile organic compounds, which can cause respiratory issues, headaches, and other health problems. “Eliminating these leaks reduces occupational hazards for workers and lowers the risk of catastrophic blowouts that can devastate communities,” the statement added.

Broader Implications and International Repercussions

The backlash from the NAS is not limited to domestic policy circles. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has long emphasized the necessity of curbing methane to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C target. “U.S. leadership—or the lack thereof—sets the tone for other developed nations,” said Dr. Lauer. “If the country fails to uphold these regulations, it weakens the global governance structure and undermines international climate commitments.”

The statement also touched on the Biden administration’s climate agenda, noting that the new President’s re‑instatement of the Clean Air Act and the promise to adopt more stringent methane rules are consistent with both scientific consensus and public interest. The NAS called on the Biden administration to “fortify and expand these regulations to accelerate the transition to a low‑carbon economy.”

Voices from the Environmental Community

The NAS’s condemnation has been echoed by a chorus of environmental groups and policy analysts. The Sierra Club, for instance, released a joint statement lauding the NAS for “upholding the integrity of science‑based policymaking.” Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute (API) defended the Trump memo as a “necessary economic safeguard,” arguing that the cost of implementing the rule could exceed $1.4 billion annually. The NAS counters that the economic benefits of reduced climate risk and improved public health far outweigh the regulatory costs.

The Road Ahead

While the Trump administration has signaled its intention to persist with the rollback, the NAS’s statement is a powerful reminder of the legal and scientific frameworks that govern U.S. environmental policy. The upcoming legal battles, which may reach the Supreme Court, will test the limits of federal regulatory authority and the robustness of the Clean Air Act. In the meantime, the NAS urges all stakeholders—federal agencies, states, industry, and civil society—to adhere to the rule’s mandates and to strengthen monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

“This is not merely a fight over regulations; it is a contest over the principles of science, law, and stewardship,” Lauer concluded. “The National Academy of Sciences remains committed to ensuring that climate policy is rooted in evidence, transparent, and aligned with the nation’s long‑term interests.”