Gretchen Goldman

Ensuring scientific integrity in the Age of Trump

Policies to protect government scientists must be defended With the new Donald J. Trump Administration comes uncertainty in the role that science will play in the U.S. federal government. Early indications that the Administration plans to distort or disregard science and evidence, coupled with the chaos and confusion occurring within federal agencies, now imperil the effectiveness of our government. Evidence from the past 20 years demonstrates that, when faced with such threats, supporters of science can take steps to protect the integrity of science in the federal policy-making process. The scientific community will need to connect science-informed policy to positive outcomes and staunchly defend scientific freedom. It must also spotlight political interference in science-based policy development and be prepared to protect scientists—both within and outside the government—against executive or legislative overreach. A range of scientific integrity and transparency policies across federal agencies provides critical tools but must be enforced and protected.

Congress's attacks on science-based rules

Proposed laws based on false premises could undermine science for the public interest There is a growing and troubling assault on using credible scientific knowledge in U.S. government regulation that will put science and democracy at risk if unchecked. We present five examples, and the false premises on which they are based, of current attempts in the U.S. Congress in the supposed pursuit of transparency and accountability but at the expense of the role of science in policy-making.

Assessing Corporate Influence on Climate Change Dialogue

Companies help shape public dialogue around climate change, and corporate messages on the topic have been diverse: From support for international climate negotiations and green marketing campaigns to doubt about climate science and organized denial campaigns. A sample of 28 U.S.-based companies was analyzed to determine which of these corporate messages have aligned with climate science. In addition, sample companies were identified as consistent or inconsistent in actions related to climate-change. We found that although companies expressed concern about climate change or commitment to mitigation, half of the companies misrepresented climate science in public communications. This chapter concludes with ways to hold companies accountable for their statements on climate change and with recommendations for developing a more science-based dialogue.

See no evil

Goldman and Rosenberg comment on US Pres Donald Trumps proposed funding cuts for science agencies. The cuts would end four NASA Earth Science missions set to make measurements that improve greenhouse gas estimates; detect harmful algal blooms, volcanic ash and oil spills; and Improve air pollution checks. It is likely that such a strategy will fail to adequately protect public health and safety in the face of emerging threats. The research community must not allow this. The scientific enterprise depends on it.

Stormy Seas, Rising Risks: Assessing Undisclosed Risk from Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge at Coastal US Oil Refineries

As the world works to build resiliency to the impacts of climate change, it is increasingly important that companies, in addition to communities, consider and manage risks from such impacts to their assets and infrastructure. Discussion of climate change as a financial risk presents opportunities to engage companies and their investors on climate-related issues. Coastal oil-refining operations, in particular, face tremendous risks from the impacts of climate change, which can damage or destroy coastal energy facilities, curtail or stop production, and inundate nearby communities. Here, five oil refineries’ risk to sea level rise, and climate change-enhanced storm surge is assessed for the present day, 2030, 2050, and 2100. Risk assessments are compared against the degree to which the five companies have publicly disclosed climate-related risk to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, as recommended. Finally, suggestions are offered for better company consideration and disclosure of climate risks.