Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
FIRST ON FOX: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, a taxpayer-funded organization with substantial federal backing, is under scrutiny for its expedited climate review process. Critics argue that this initiative aims to counteract the Trump administration’s energy policies.
Recently, Politico reported that this prominent body is using internal funds to accelerate a climate review set to be published in September. This review aims to guide the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to overturn the Obama-era greenhouse gas endangerment finding, which many conservatives assert has hindered American energy production.
The study is being spearheaded by distinguished molecular biologist Shirley M. Tilghman. Aside from her role at NASEM, she serves as an External Science Advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance. This organization has connections to the progress-heavy consulting firm Arabella Advisors through the New Venture Fund. This nonprofit is known for advocating various progressive causes.
Critics have voiced their concerns about the timing of the review and the potential political motivations behind this rapid approach. Daren Bakst, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, expressed his views in a conversation with Fox News Digital.
Bakst remarked that NASEM’s decision to fast-track a study related to greenhouse gas emissions undermines its credibility. He pointed out that the announcement made on August 7, promising a report by September, is exceptionally rushed. He speculated that the report may have already been drafted, suggesting that the organization has preconceived conclusions and is simply retrofitting evidence to support them.
Furthermore, conservatives contend that institutions linked to Arabella Advisors operate as a “dark money” network, subtly influencing policy discussions and shaping research agendas. This trend highlights an increasing intersection between research institutions and ideologically rooted funding sources.
Adding to the concern is the fact that NASEM receives around 85% of its financial support from federal funds.
Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, offered further insights. He speculated that this move could be an attempt to solidify NASEM’s role as the arbiter of authoritative science. Fisher emphasized the importance of questioning whether government-funded entities face conflicts of interest when determining the climate debate narrative. Alarmingly, he noted that heightened anxiety around climate change could lead to increased research financing.
Reflecting on the connections to Arabella, Fisher stated that any relationship between NASEM’s actions and political advocacy groups requires critical examination. He expressed interest in uncovering who advocated for NASEM’s participation and whether ideological teams pressured the institution to engage in such politically charged debates.
James Taylor, the President of the Heartland Institute, characterized NASEM as an organization driven by leftist agendas, entirely dependent on government funding. Previous reports have highlighted that NASEM, sometimes known as NAS, has accumulated hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding while providing lucrative salaries to its executives and financially supporting numerous left-leaning initiatives.
From Taylor’s perspective, NASEM has transitioned from a scientific organization to a political entity. He also pointed to disconcerting statistics regarding authorship in a recent climate science assessment, highlighting that only 22% of contributors held PhDs, while an equal portion were affiliated with environmental advocacy groups. Such a composition raises significant concerns regarding the institution’s credibility.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, a NASEM representative defended the accelerated study. They clarified that this initiative is funded through private donations and is intended to inform the public commentary requested by the EPA.
In response, a spokesperson from the New Venture Fund outlined the organization’s role, indicating that it employs a fiscal sponsorship model to support a diverse array of nonpartisan projects. They affirmed their commitment to enhancing foundational science funding, highlighting their relationship with Science Philanthropy Alliance until it transitioned in 2023.
The backdrop of this situation includes the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to rescind the Obama-era greenhouse gas endangerment finding, a crucial aspect of climate regulation that opponents argue has impeded American energy capabilities. The public comment period regarding the proposal is set to conclude in mid-September.
The 2009 Endangerment Finding issued by the EPA declared that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide pose threats to public health and welfare for both current and future generations. This finding established the EPA’s legal responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin vowed to reconsider the finding. He asserted that it has unleashed a wave of regulations costing the U.S. economy over one trillion dollars. Zeldin reiterated this stance in a July speech, where he criticized the Biden-Harris administration’s electric vehicle mandates.
He articulated his belief that the proposed changes would eliminate sixteen years of uncertainty faced by automakers and consumers alike, enhancing options and affordability for American buyers.
Arabella’s spokesperson clarified that Arabella does not allocate funding to any organizations. They portray Arabella as a professional service firm supporting nonprofit clients with administrative necessities such as compliance and accounting, distinctly disassociating from roles as donors or funders.
This scenario illustrates the growing discussions around the intersection of science, policy, and funding, particularly in an era where climate change remains a contentious issue.
The future trajectories of organizations like NASEM will require careful scrutiny, particularly as they navigate the complex dynamics between scientific inquiry and political influence.
As the narrative unfolds regarding the EPA’s proposed changes, it will be crucial to consider the broader implications of these reviews and their outcomes within the national policy landscape.
