In a significant development this Monday, nearly 400 climate scientists across the United States received notifications that their expertise would no longer be required in the formulation of a pivotal federal report on climate change. The report in question, the National Climate Assessment (NCA), plays a crucial role in informing federal, state, and local governments, as well as private entities about the nuances of climate change, its impacts, and strategies for mitigation and adaptation.
The National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive evaluation required by Congress every four years as stipulated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, is intended to compile and summarize the effects of climate change in the U.S. It serves as a critical tool for policy-making and planning, dealing with the increasing challenges posed by a changing climate. The upcoming sixth edition of this assessment, scheduled for publication in 2027, was already under preparation when the abrupt dismissals were communicated via an email.
An email from the Deputy Director of Services of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates the production of the NCA, stated, “Thank you for your participation in the 6th National Climate Assessment … we are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles.” This email also mentioned that the scope of the NCA is under reevaluation, indicating a possible shift in the direction under the current administration.
The reevaluation seems to align with broader policy changes hinted at in recent governmental moves. The Trump administration, as reported, is reexamining compliance mechanisms with the existing law while also potentially reshaping the administrative structures involved with the report’s preparation. This direction was previously outlined in Project 2025, a policy framework proposed by the Heritage Foundation. The document suggested significant transformations in federal oversight of climate reporting, advocating for a presentation of diverse viewpoints and diminishing centralized bureaucratic control over climate assessments.
This direction has not been without controversy. The large-scale dismissal of non-federal scientists, who had volunteered their services in assembling crucial data and writing the assessment, has sparked significant alarm within the scientific community. Many of these contributors bring specialized knowledge and perspectives which are critical for a nuanced understanding of climate impacts and solutions. Their abrupt removal has raised concerns about the future integrity and comprehensiveness of the National Climate Assessment.
Experts like Steven Hamburg, Chief Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, vehemently criticized the dismissals. Hamburg emphasized that dismissing qualified scientists does not negate the reality of climate change nor does it aid in addressing its consequences such as increased storms, droughts, wildfires, and temperature fluctuations. He argued that it only hinders the ability to effectively curb emissions and manage the worsening climate impacts.
This sentiment was echoed across the academic and scientific landscape. Dr. Robert Kopp, a noted climate scientist from Rutgers University involved in the current assessment, expressed concerns about the direction of the upcoming report. He emphasized the need for an up-to-date, evidence-based report which might now be jeopardized by the exclusion of experienced scientists and shrinking administrative support.
The repercussions of these administrative changes are profound, extending beyond just the production of the assessment. Dr. Mijin Cha, from the University of California, Santa Cruz, a fellow contributor, pointed out the broader implications on U.S.’s status as a leader in climate data and research. The move might tarnish the nation’s reputation as a reliable source of scientific information.
Facing these challenges, some scientists have started contemplating alternative routes for continuing their work on climate assessment independently of federal oversight. This could involve independent fundraising and organizing efforts to maintain the rigour and frequency of comprehensive climate reports.
As mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, the Trump administration is required to produce the National Climate Assessment by the end of 2027. How this will be achieved in light of recent changes, and the potential influence of alternative viewpoints on the scientific rigor and objectivity of the report, remains a contentious and closely watched development.
This shift in climate policy and its implications are part of broader discussions on environmental governance under the Trump administration, reflecting a critical moment in U.S. environmental policy. As the world grapples with escalating climate crises, the integrity and depth of the National Climate Assessment are more crucial than ever, shaping not just national policy but also influencing global strategies to mitigate and adapt to inevitable climate change.
