Energy Department Gets An F On Its Climate Report
The post Energy Department Gets An F On Its Climate Report appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Current Climate brings you the latest news about the business of sustainability every Monday. Sign up to get it in your inbox. The Trump administration has wasted no time rolling back nearly all federal incentives for clean energy enacted by President Joe Biden, while also pushing Cabinet secretaries to promote policies that increase fossil fuel production, including even the Environmental Protection Agency. So it wasn’t entirely surprising that in late July the Energy Department released a report, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” that told Americans the climate-warping effects of carbon dioxide and other pollutants aren’t nearly as big a problem as they’ve been led to believe. That’s convenient since the report was done in conjunction with EPA’s plan to jettison the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the legal basis for U.S. climate regulations. While it doesn’t deny temperatures are rising, the study concluded that “CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies may be misdirected.” It also suggests potential benefits from increased carbon dioxide for agriculture—while failing to mention that drought and rising temperatures more than offset that. A public comment period on the report concluded last week, with scores of leading climate researchers determining the findings to be “either misleading or fundamentally incorrect.” “This document might appear to be a scientific report, but it is anything but,” said Andy Miller, a 34-year veteran with EPA’s Office of Research and Development that was eliminated in June. “I always like to find a silver lining; in this case, the silver lining is that this document is a wonderful example of junk science that can be used as an example for years to come.” Rebecca Neumann, a University of Washington associate professor of engineering and environmental science, was…
The post Energy Department Gets An F On Its Climate Report appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com.
Current Climate brings you the latest news about the business of sustainability every Monday. Sign up to get it in your inbox. The Trump administration has wasted no time rolling back nearly all federal incentives for clean energy enacted by President Joe Biden, while also pushing Cabinet secretaries to promote policies that increase fossil fuel production, including even the Environmental Protection Agency. So it wasn’t entirely surprising that in late July the Energy Department released a report, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” that told Americans the climate-warping effects of carbon dioxide and other pollutants aren’t nearly as big a problem as they’ve been led to believe. That’s convenient since the report was done in conjunction with EPA’s plan to jettison the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the legal basis for U.S. climate regulations. While it doesn’t deny temperatures are rising, the study concluded that “CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies may be misdirected.” It also suggests potential benefits from increased carbon dioxide for agriculture—while failing to mention that drought and rising temperatures more than offset that. A public comment period on the report concluded last week, with scores of leading climate researchers determining the findings to be “either misleading or fundamentally incorrect.” “This document might appear to be a scientific report, but it is anything but,” said Andy Miller, a 34-year veteran with EPA’s Office of Research and Development that was eliminated in June. “I always like to find a silver lining; in this case, the silver lining is that this document is a wonderful example of junk science that can be used as an example for years to come.” Rebecca Neumann, a University of Washington associate professor of engineering and environmental science, was…
What's Your Reaction?
