From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The United States Department of Energy recently published a report, which essentially summarizes the U.S. government’s rejection of the 30-year-old, United Nations-centric, climate-alarmed consensus worldview.

In short, the report rejects the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2)—manmade or otherwise—constitutes a traditional pollutant—that is, a substance which is out of its natural role/place in the environment, and is causing harm. Rather, according to the report, CO2 is more properly seen as a fertilizer: manmade CO2 additions to the atmosphere do take the “carbon” out of a natural reservoir and put it into the air, but the effect is not toxic nor harmful. Rather, additional CO2 stimulates plant growth around the world, causing a well-documented phenomenon of “global greening.”

The report also disputes predictions that human emissions of CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) will result in dangerous climate warming or other dangerous knock-on effects such as changes to extreme weather of various sorts (floods, droughts, storms, wildfires). Such claims, the report holds, are exaggerated.

The report also, not surprisingly, diverges from the UN-climate-alarmed consensus idea that the solution to climate change risk is global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission suppression. Rather, when it comes to policy, the report comes down firmly on the idea of adaptation to potential climate disruptions, regardless of cause: “Technological advances such as improved weather forecasting and early warning systems” have substantially reduced losses from extreme weather events. Better building codes, flood defences and disaster response mechanisms have lowered economic losses relative to GDP. Further, heat-related mortality risk has dropped substantially due to adaptive measures including the adoption of air conditioning (which relies on a robust economy) and the availability of affordable energy. “U.S. mortality risks… even under extreme warming scenarios are not projected to increase if people are able to undertake adaptive responses.”

What does this mean for Canada?

First, one must assume that it portends a continued U.S. movement away from GHG mitigation efforts and programs involving direct emission suppression from sources such as power plants, manufacturing facilities, vehicles, commercial and residential buildings, and so forth.

It will also likely mean less intrusive efforts to suppress GHG emissions indirectly with various energy efficiency standards, agricultural practices and the mandated replacement of GHG-emission power production with lower/less-GHG emitting wind and solar technologies. Oh, and once again, the much-ballyhooed transition from internal combustion transportation to electric vehicles is likely to take it in the neck, at least in the U.S. for the next four years.

Again, what does this mean for Canada? In a nutshell, it means the U.S. will cut a fairly large amount of spending on GHG suppression measures while Canada (Carney government, et al) plans to increase such spending. And the U.S. will also cut spending—and consumer costs—for electric vehicles while Canada will increase both. Because virtually all of the U.S. focus is about lowering the costs of energy and the technologies that use it—and energy is the foundational input of developed economies—all of that will likely make the U.S. more economically competitive, from the individual to the firm, compared to Canada.

The more Canada elbows up and doubles down on joining the UN’s GHG-suppression regime, the less competitive Canada will make itself compared to the U.S., which—Trump’s tariffs and current politics notwithstanding—remains the most relevant touchstone for whether or not Canadian policies are economically rational.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

MxM News

Quick Hit:

In a move rattling the climate establishment, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced steps to repeal the Obama-era “endangerment” finding. The announcement coincided with the release of a landmark Energy Department report aiming to reintroduce scientific uncertainty into the climate conversation. The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley A. Strassel praised the effort as a pivotal moment in the rise of a “scientifically armed and debate-ready climate right.”

Key Details:

• Chris Wright stated, “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention,” but urged a reassessment of alarmist narratives.
• The report was authored by five respected scientists, including a former Obama administration official.
• Findings include that climate change poses risks but also benefits, such as improved agricultural productivity, and that extreme weather events show no historical increase.

Diving Deeper:

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, columnist Kimberley A. Strassel hailed the July 29 remarks by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as the long-overdue “rise…of a scientifically armed and debate-ready climate right.” The pair’s announcement in Indiana—targeting the 2009 “endangerment” finding that empowered sweeping climate regulations—was paired with the release of a new Energy Department report that confronts the so-called climate “consensus” with sober scientific inquiry.

The report, titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, has already triggered an outcry from mainstream media, especially The New York Times, which denounced the authors as “skeptics” who “misrepresent” data and “undermine” established views. But as Strassel points out, the attack conspicuously avoided using the favorite pejorative of climate alarmists—“denier.” Why? Because, she writes, “the report…doesn’t deny the climate is changing.”

Indeed, as Secretary Wright explained in his introduction, “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention.” Yet the report emphasizes what’s often excluded from public discourse: uncertainty. The analysis argues that models are “all over the map,” that human impact on warming remains difficult to isolate due to “natural variability, data limitations, uncertain models and fluctuations in solar activity,” and that U.S. climate policy—even drastic measures—will yield “negligible effect on global temperatures.”

Among the report’s conclusions—backed by peer-reviewed literature—are that global warming carries benefits (such as enhanced crop yields), and that there’s no discernible increase in the intensity or frequency of extreme weather events across the U.S. It also states that “climate change is likely to have little effect on economic growth.” These facts run counter to the doomsday narratives pushed by leftist bureaucrats and Biden-aligned media outlets, which have relentlessly portrayed climate change as an “existential” threat to justify government overreach.

Strassel frames the shift as a necessary realignment of the GOP’s climate posture. For years, she notes, conservatives tried various angles—denying warming, focusing on the economic toll of leftist policies, promoting an “all of the above” energy mix—but were marginalized as unserious. Wright’s move, she argues, signals a return to fundamentals: “challenge the notion of ‘consensus’… reinject forgotten factors into the debate (cost, competing priorities) and in general ensure Americans have the whole picture.”

This realignment, Strassel contends, couldn’t come at a more crucial time. “What’s become obvious in recent years—thanks to the taste of it we got with the Biden administration—is that climate hysteria is one of the greatest threats to freedom in modern times.” She warns that Biden’s climate agenda has been used as a Trojan horse for central control—over vehicles, food, consumer goods, and even where Americans are permitted to live.

Strassel concludes with a hopeful note: “The right this week debuted its new strategy, and Americans received the bigger scientific picture. Long may that healthy, vigorous debate—the essence of good science—continue.” The effort by Wright and Zeldin may mark a turning point, not just in energy policy, but in the fight for scientific integrity and political freedom.