Scientists Challenge DOE Climate Report Used To Justify EPA Policy Shift

US climate and energy policy agenda remains fossil-fuel-forward. Since day one of President Trump’s administration, we’ve tracked executive and congressional efforts to bolster the industry.

A recent Department of Energy (DOE) report titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate”, reopens debate over human-induced climate change. The report is being used to support the EPA’s proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding that underpins federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

On September 2, more than 85 leading climate scientists released a coordinated 400-page rebuttal of the DOE report. Separately, Carbon Brief found that the 140-page Review contained over 100 misleading or false claims. These include positive or neutral assertions, such as the claim that elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels promote a beneficial global greening effect that supports agriculture and that ocean acidification is harmless, while overlooking well-documented downsides of climate change, including heat stress on crop yields and harmful impacts on marine ecosystems.

Some claims are outright false, such as stating that Arctic sea ice loss has been nominal at 5% (the actual figure is closer to 40%), while citing data from the Antarctic instead. The report also denies observable changes in extreme weather patterns, despite the IPCC AR6 concluding with high confidence that human-sourced greenhouse gas emissions have increased the frequency and intensity of temperature extremes, precipitation events, tropical cyclones and droughts.

Members of the climate science community have expressed deep frustration over the report’s bias, misrepresentation and selective use of data to support the administration’s pro-fossil-fuel narrative. In a survey of more than 350 climate scientists conducted by the Associated Press, 64 responded – 53 of whom gave negative reviews. Notably, 10% of the Review’s citations were from sources authored by its own contributors. The American Meteorological Society, a respected authority in atmospheric and related sciences, criticized the report and its authors lacking the depth and breadth expected in discussions of well-established climate science.

If the DOE’s report leads to the rescinding of the Endangerment Finding, it could trigger significant litigation and regulatory risks for firms (see Another Rule, Another (Proposed) Rollback: The Impact Of Rescinding The Endangerment Finding). Currently, plaintiffs can pursue climate-related damages under state common law, but not under federal law via the Clean Air Act. Removing the Endangerment Finding would eliminate this federal protection, exposing high-emitting organizations to more climate liability lawsuits, hindered investment and a fragmented regulatory environment.