A recent study has revealed groundbreaking information about the intent behind the Clean Air Act of 1970. This study is set to challenge the long-standing belief that Congress was unaware of the implications of carbon dioxide emissions when the act was passed. The research, to be published in Ecology Law Quarterly, uncovers a forgotten conversation among top scientists, federal administrators, members of Congress, and senior staff under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. This conversation highlighted the science behind carbon dioxide pollution accumulating in the atmosphere from fossil fuels and its potential impact on global climate.
The findings of this study are crucial in light of the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which led to the rejection of the Obama administration’s power plant rules. This doctrine suggests that courts should consider lawmakers’ original intent and the context in which legislation was passed when reviewing regulations with significant economic and political implications. The lead author of the study, Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University, argues that the evidence uncovered challenges the idea that Congress was unaware of the climate crisis when passing the Clean Air Act.
The study’s inception dates back to 2013 when Oreskes began investigating what Congress knew about climate science during the 1960s. The research team delved into congressional archives, scientific conferences attended by lawmakers, and correspondence with constituents and scientific advisers to uncover evidence that suggests lawmakers were well informed about the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions. Documents revealed that Sen. Edmund Muskie, a key figure in the Clean Air Act’s development, had warned about irreversible atmospheric and climatic changes due to pollution.
Furthermore, the research highlights the concern raised by Sen. Gaylord Nelson in 1966 about the drastic effects of carbon dioxide pollution on climate. Even letters from constituents, such as one to Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, expressed skepticism about dismissing warnings of melting polar ice caps and global flooding. This evidence demonstrates that discussions around carbon dioxide as a pollutant were prevalent among influential figures in Congress at the time.
The study challenges the narrative that Congress was uninformed about the implications of carbon dioxide emissions and emphasizes the need to consider the original intent behind environmental legislation. By shedding light on the historical context of the Clean Air Act, this research provides valuable insights that could shape future climate policies and regulatory decisions.
