Tuesday, July 1, 2025
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions
Environmental Magazine
Advertisement
  • Home
  • News
  • Climate Change
  • Energy
  • Recycling
  • Air
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Water
No Result
View All Result
Environmental Magazine
  • Home
  • News
  • Climate Change
  • Energy
  • Recycling
  • Air
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Water
No Result
View All Result
Environmental Magazine
No Result
View All Result
Home Fossil Fuels

Memo to the Supreme Court: Clean Air Act Targeted CO2 as Climate Pollutant, Study Says

August 2, 2024
in Fossil Fuels
A A

Among the many obstacles to enacting federal limits on climate pollution, none has been more daunting than the Supreme Court. That is where the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate power plant emissions met their demise and where the Biden administration’s attempts will no doubt land.

A forthcoming study seeks to inform how courts consider challenges to these regulations by establishing once and for all that the lawmakers who shaped the Clean Air Act in 1970 knew scientists considered carbon dioxide an air pollutant, and that these elected officials were intent on limiting its emissions.

The research, expected to be published next week in the journal Ecology Law Quarterly, delves deep into congressional archives to uncover what it calls a “wide-ranging and largely forgotten conversation between leading scientists, high-level administrators at federal agencies, members of Congress” and senior staff under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. That conversation detailed what had become the widely accepted science showing that carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuels was accumulating in the atmosphere and would eventually warm the global climate.

Election 2024

Explore the latest news about what’s at stake for the climate during this election season.

The findings could have important implications in light of a legal doctrine the Supreme Court established when it struck down the Obama administration’s power plant rules, said Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University and the study’s lead author. That so-called “major questions” doctrine asserted that when courts hear challenges to regulations with broad economic and political implications, they ought to consider lawmakers’ original intent and the broader context in which legislation was passed.

“The Supreme Court has implied that there’s no way that the Clean Air Act could really have been intended to apply to carbon dioxide because Congress just didn’t really know about this issue at that time,” Oreskes said. “We think that our evidence shows that that is false.”

The work began in 2013 after Oreskes arrived at Harvard, she said, when a call from a colleague prompted the question of what Congress knew about climate science in the 1960s as it was developing Clean Air Act legislation. She had already co-authored the book Merchants of Doubt, about the efforts of industry-funded scientists to cast doubt about the risks of tobacco and global warming, and was familiar with the work of scientists studying climate change in the 1950s. “What I didn’t know,” she said, “was how much they had communicated that, particularly to Congress.”

Oreskes hired a researcher to start looking and what they both found surprised her. The evidence they uncovered includes articles cataloged by the staff of the act’s chief architect, proceedings of scientific conferences attended by members of Congress and correspondence with constituents and scientific advisers to Johnson and Nixon. The material included documents pertaining not only to environmental champions but also other prominent members of Congress.

“These were people really at the center of power,” Oreskes said.

Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University, speaks at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Switzerland on Jan. 18. Credit: World Economic Forum/Sandra BlaserNaomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University, speaks at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Switzerland on Jan. 18. Credit: World Economic Forum/Sandra Blaser
Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University, speaks at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Switzerland on Jan. 18. Credit: World Economic Forum/Sandra Blaser

When Sen. Edmund Muskie, a Maine Democrat, introduced the Clean Air Act of 1970, he warned his colleagues that unchecked air pollution would continue to “threaten irreversible atmospheric and climatic changes.” The new research shows that his staff had collected reports establishing the science behind his statement. He and other senators had attended a 1966 conference featuring discussion of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. At that conference, Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned about carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuel combustion, which he said “is believed to have drastic effects on climate.”

The paper also cites a 1969 letter to Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington from a constituent who had watched the poet Allen Ginsberg warning of melting polar ice caps and widespread global flooding on the Merv Griffin Show. The constituent was skeptical of the message, called Ginsberg “one of America’s premier kooks” and sought a correction of the record from the senator: “After all, quite a few million people watch this show, people of widely varying degrees of intelligence, and the possibility of this sort of charge—even from an Allen Ginsberg—being accepted even in part, is dangerous.”

Jackson then sent the letter to presidential science advisor Lee DuBridge, who responded by detailing the latest science, which showed that while there was uncertainty about the effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas effect was real and a product of fossil fuel combustion.

“We just felt that strengthens the argument that this is not some little siloed scientific thing,” Oreskes said of the episode. “It’s not just a few geeky experts.”

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Donate Now

The new paper is not the first to assert that climate science was well established by the mid-1960s and that congressional leaders were aware of it. Other work, including some cited in the study, has shown that hearings on Clean Air Act amendments explicitly addressed global climate change.  

The new work adds breadth and depth to this body of evidence, said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.

In a landmark 2007 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. However, even that ruling claimed that climate science was in its “infancy” when Congress enacted the key provisions in 1970.

The ruling, known as Massachusetts v. EPA, quickly became a target for some political conservatives. Project 2025, a conservative playbook for a next Republican administration, calls for undoing the EPA “endangerment” findings the ruling enabled, though Donald Trump has sought to distance himself from Project 2025 as he campaigns for reelection. The Trump administration reportedly considered such a move in its final days but opted against it.

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, said the new study could be “of critical importance” if the Supreme Court were to hear a challenge to Massachusetts v. EPA.

The authors published their paper in a law journal, rather than one focused on history or science, because they hope it will shape future legal challenges and court decisions, Oreskes said.

While several legal and policy experts praised the work for its additions to the history, some questioned how much influence it will have on the Supreme Court’s rightwing majority.

“Unfortunately there’s a big question mark as to how much weight the court will, in any individual instance, place on actual history as opposed to select history that supports the ultimate conclusion that they favor,” Burger said. “One of the big criticisms of the major questions doctrine and the current majority’s use of history is that it does tend to be quite selective.”

He added that the current challenge to the Biden administration’s power plant regulations does not focus on whether the EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide but on unrelated, technical questions about which technologies can be used to limit pollution.

What the new research should do, Burger said, is conclusively refute the notion that the EPA cannot regulate carbon dioxide.

“The argument that the Clean Air Act for some reason should not include the regulation of greenhouse gases is simply wrong,” Burger said.

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

Thank you,

Nicholas Kusnetz

Reporter, New York City

Nicholas Kusnetz is a reporter for Inside Climate News. Before joining ICN, he worked at the Center for Public Integrity and ProPublica. His work has won numerous awards, including from the Society of Environmental Journalists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and has appeared in more than a dozen publications, including The Washington Post, Businessweek, The Nation, Fast Company and The New York Times.

ShareTweetSharePinSendShare

Related Articles

Fossil Fuels

Texas Supreme Court Rules on Produced Water Ownership

July 1, 2025
Fossil Fuels

The Danger of Losing the EPA’s Endangerment Finding

June 28, 2025
Fossil Fuels

Trump Joins the Opposition to Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act, Calling it ‘Burdensome’ and ‘Ideologically Motivated’

June 27, 2025
Fossil Fuels

Five Years After Pennsylvania’s Landmark Fracking Report, Its Public Health Goals Remain Largely Unmet, Groups Say

June 26, 2025
Fossil Fuels

Texas Legislature Increases Well Plugging Budget as Backlog Grows

June 25, 2025
Fossil Fuels

As GOP Tries to Pass Tax Bill, Senate Includes Billions in Benefits for Oil Industry

June 23, 2025

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recommended

Scotland announces new £10m CO2 Utilisation Challenge Fund

April 12, 2022

EU project aims to curb release of world’s most potent GHG

February 1, 2024

Don't miss it

Energy

Latest GOP Provisions in Budget Bill Seek to Crush Renewable Energy

June 30, 2025
Activism

Truckers Say Oil and Gas Companies Are Violating Hazardous Materials Transport Regulations

June 29, 2025
Energy

Texas’ Risk of Summer Blackouts Reduced Thanks to Solar and Batteries

June 28, 2025
Activism

‘Systematically Failed’: Civil Society’s Latest Attempt to Reform UN Climate Talks

June 27, 2025
News

UK government body to deploy innovative robotics to manage radioactive waste

June 27, 2025
News

Squaring the circle: Making sense of the UK Industrial Strategy

June 27, 2025
Environmental Magazine

Environmental Magazine, Latest News, Opinions, Analysis Environmental Magazine. Follow us for more news about Enviroment and climate change from all around the world.

Learn more

Sections

  • Activism
  • Air
  • Climate Change
  • Energy
  • Fossil Fuels
  • News
  • Uncategorized
  • Water

Topics

Activism Air Climate Change Energy Fossil Fuels News Uncategorized Water

Recent News

Texas Supreme Court Rules on Produced Water Ownership

July 1, 2025

Latest GOP Provisions in Budget Bill Seek to Crush Renewable Energy

June 30, 2025

© 2023 Environmental Magazine. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Climate Change
  • Energy
  • Recycling
  • Air
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Water

© 2023 Environmental Magazine. All rights reserved.

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.