Over the summer, the U.S. Department of Energy published a report that reassesses the scientific and economic basis for U.S. climate and energy policies. The authors of the report commissioned by President Donald Trump made allegations of vast overstatements and misrepresentation existing prominently throughout the science community as it pertains to the public climate. This report and its ambitious attempt to clarify alleged discrepancies is under severe scrutiny and will surely remain a hot-button issue over the next couple of years.
THE REPORT
The extensive document covers a lot of information regarding atmospheric science, concerns of extreme weather trends, the social impact of the issue as well as the economic effects and much more. I will summarize and explain the report’s content to the best of my abilities but as always, I encourage readers to conduct independent research and indulge in curiosity. For reference, follow this LINK to read DOE’s report.
Atmospheric Science
The basic argument for climate change suggests that warming temperatures are caused by increasing production and release of carbon dioxide (Co2) into the air. This hypothesis has led to various policy initiatives to cut back the source of carbon dioxide by innovating electric vehicles to replace gasoline vehicles for example.
DOE’s report does not contest the fact that human activity has caused a rise in Co2 concentrations being released into the atmosphere. However, it argues that the magnitude of the impact of human activity on warming temperatures is uncertain and established climate models are over-predicting these temperature increases.
Extreme Weather
Another common argument defending climate change and its’ dire upward spike states that there has been increase in extreme weather events on account of significantly warming temperatures (i.e. hurricanes, tornados, droughts). DOE’s report disagrees by asserting that U.S. weather indicators do not clearly show such a trend. Such extreme events fluctuate naturally in a way that they’re affected by land management rather than greenhouse gases.
The report does acknowledge a regional warming occurring in certain areas, as well as there being more hotter days since the 1950s. However, it is argued that the 1920s and ‘30s saw hotter temperatures all around.
Social Impacts
DOE’s report contends that mortality rates rise more prolifically in scenarios of extreme cold temperatures than those of hot temperatures. That being said, it is argued that the greater issue presides with access to affordable energy which has served as a life-saving adaptation for humans.
In fact, the report outlines how an increase in Co2 fertilization of agriculture may actually be beneficial toward a positive social impact.
Policy Implications
Overall, the authors of the report largely question the efficacy of domestic climate regulations when placed on a global scale. For example, how does the elimination of gasoline-required vehicles in the U.S. produce a net-beneficial result on a global scale?
Rather than prompting rapid decarbonization, the authors propose a climate policy that is evidence-based, and focused on innovation and energy affordability.
WHERE’S THE CLASH?
With such a bold report being published, there is bound to be a bold response of opposition. The basic identification of clash between supporters and critics of the report is this: supporters argue that the report offers a necessary re-evaluation of the ongoing climate orthodoxy, while critics argue that the report was politically motivated and dismisses the premise of established science.
A Wall Street Journal op-ed suggests that the assessments of climate science within the report grossly minimizes ‘natural variability’ – the statistical analysis of the climate on all relevant scales beyond specific weather events.
Other sources question the authors who were selected to create the DOE report and say that the report is full of errors. Most notably amongst critics is the Union of Concerned Scientists and Environmental Defense Fund, which submitted a lawsuit on the Trump administration that they contend “quietly arranged for five hand-picked skeptics of the effects of climate change” to develop the report.
The response at large was organized by Andrew Dressler from Texas A&M and Robert Kopp from Rutger, as Dressler stated that the authors of the DOE report did not have any policy goals as a group when publishing the document. Collectively these two men contend that the report does not meet the necessary standards of science which are quality, utility, objectivity and integrity, as the document is full of errors and omissions.
Many have compared the DOE’s report to a similar assessment published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While DOE employed four scientists and one economist to conduct necessary research, the UN report consisted of 721 volunteer scientists. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, said that DOE’s climate denial has become the official policy of the U.S., as the authors present “contrarian views” that are ”out of step with the mainstream.”
Travis Fisher released a personal blog following the publication of DOE’s report, explaining why he followed through with the initiative after Chris Wright asked him to move forward with the blueprints for the report. In his post, Fisher stated that there is often little room for debate on the issue of climate change with both sides of the political aisle remaining staunchly opposed.
While the political left believes that any skepticism of the climate crisis is equivalent to being an “Orwellian thought crime”, the political right holds that a crisis of human-induced climate change is a laughing matter. Fisher states his moderate opinion on the matter with precision: human activity does impact climate change; however, we are not experiencing a crisis.
Fisher continued in the blog to explain what the plan was for such a bold report.
The grounding intention of the report was to reinforce the points of wide agreement that could be reached among climate scientists. For example, it is widely agreed upon that carbon dioxide creates greenhouse gases that warm the planet. From there, the authors were to expose “inconvenient truths” about climate change being an existential threat to the U.S.
As Fisher explains, U.S. historical data does not support this theory that there has been an increase in frequency of extreme weather events on account of the existential threat of climate change.
On the matter of credibility, Fisher defends the scientists involved in writing up the report. He stated that all obtain PhD’s and have had climate data widely published previously. The authors include John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koorin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.
CONCLUSION
It’s doubtful that the climate debate will ever be settled. It is much too contentious from both sides of the scientific and/or political aisle. However, you can determine for yourself what you believe. Are we truly experiencing a climate crisis in the U.S.? Was DOE’s report detrimentally flawed? Was the report politically driven or authentically created?
***
Katelyn Sims is a senior at Howard Payne University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree in social science with emphasis in American political studies, global studies and jurisprudence. She is also a student in the university’s Guy D. Newman Honors Academy, as well as a prominent member of the Student Speaker Bureau speech and debate team. Following graduation, Katelyn will pursue a career in the field of U.S. foreign policy.
Katelyn has worked as a news writer and marketing coordinator with Brownwood News since 2023. Her column The Truth Will Set You Free is intended for all people from all walks of life. Katelyn aspires to inform readers of major U.S. political and legislative activity with an unbiased analysis that engages with political ideologies on all sides of the aisle. She believes the public ought to exercise their free will to cultivate personalized opinions on controversial issues without the influence of mainstream media.
