Getty Photos | Rudy Sulgan
Despite numerous hurdles in enacting federal regulations on local air pollution caused by weather, the most formidable obstacle remains the Supreme Court’s stance. It’s where the Obama administration’s attempts to regulate energy plant emissions ultimately faltered, and it’s also where the Biden administration’s endeavors are likely to face significant challenges.
A forthcoming study aims to determine when courts consider challenges to environmental regulations by definitively establishing whether lawmakers who passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 were aware that scientists considered carbon dioxide an air pollutant, and if these elected officials intentionally sought to limit its emissions.
The forthcoming analysis in Ecology Legislation Quarterly scrutinizes previously overlooked Congressional records, revealing a far-reaching conversation between prominent scientists, federal agency leaders, Members of Congress, and senior White House officials during the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. The dialogue outlined the widely recognized scientific findings indicating a rapid accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, which ultimately threatened to drastically alter global climate patterns.
According to Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science professor at Harvard University and the study’s lead author, the findings may have far-reaching implications in light of a legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court when it reviewed the Obama administration’s energy plant guidelines. The so-called “main questions” doctrine posits that when courts confront challenges to laws with far-reaching financial and political repercussions, they should consider the lawmakers’ genuine intent and the broader context in which the legislation was passed.
“The Supreme Court has subtly suggested that it’s unlikely the Clean Air Act was intended to address carbon dioxide emissions, implying that Congress was unaware of this issue at the time.” “We anticipate that our proof demonstrates the falsity of that statement.”
Following her arrival at Harvard in 2013, Oreskes began exploring the question of what Congress understood about local weather science during the 1960s, sparked by a colleague’s mention that prompted her to investigate whether lawmakers were aware of growing evidence supporting climate change as they crafted the Clear Air Act. Having previously co-authored an e-book on the topic, she was well-versed in the tactics employed by industry-funded scientists to cast doubt on the perils of tobacco use and climate change; her research also spanned the work of pioneering scientists investigating global warming in the 1950s. “What surprised me was just how extensively they had interacted with Congress, and the impact of those conversations.”
Initially, Oreskes hired a researcher who uncovered findings that astonished her along with his own. The trove revealed comprises meticulously curated archives compiled by the staff of the legislation’s principal designer, alongside conference proceedings attended by Congressional representatives and exchanges with constituents and scientific consultants advising both Johnson and Nixon. The document contained information relevant not only to environmental advocates, but also to other esteemed lawmakers in Congress.
“In fact, these individuals were at the epicenter of power,” Oreskes said.
When Sen. In 1970, Maine Senator Edmund Muskie, a Democrat, introduced the Clear Air Act, cautioning his colleagues that unchecked air pollution posed a grave threat to “irreversible atmospheric and climatic adjustments,” as he put it. Newly released research reveals that the scientific evidence supporting this warning was meticulously gathered by his team. In 1966, he joined a group of senators at a conference where the discussion centred on carbon dioxide being classified as a pollutant. At that convention, Wisconsin Sen. In a prescient warning, Senator Gaylord Nelson sounded the alarm about the perils of carbon dioxide air pollution stemming from the combustion of fossil fuels, cautioning that its effects could be “drastic” and far-reaching in their impact on the climate.
The document further references a 1969 correspondence to Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington received a letter from a constituent who had seen poet Allen Ginsberg warn about melting polar ice caps and widespread international flooding on television. The constituent was skeptical of the message, dismissing Ginsberg as “one of America’s premier kooks,” and sought a correction of the report from the senator: “After all, millions of people watch this show; people with varying levels of intelligence are exposed to this kind of claim, even if it comes from Allen Ginsberg. The potential for such information being accepted, even partially, is harmful.”
