The intellectual foundation of modern climate policy rests on a shaky assumption: that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, left unchecked, will wreak unmanageable havoc on the Earth’s climate and economy, and that radical mitigation is the only path forward. This assumption has been treated not as hypothesis but dogma, one that brooks no dissent. Yet, on July 29, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) disrupted this orthodoxy with a quietly released but tectonic report, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate. Its findings deserve our undivided attention.
Developed by the 2025 Climate Working Group under Energy Secretary Chris Wright, this report evaluates the empirical record, existing literature, and widely cited models of climate change and its impact. It issues a sober verdict: the harms of CO2-induced warming are overstated, the benefits underreported, and the United States’ costly mitigation policies amount to symbolic gestures with virtually no measurable effect on global climate trajectories.
Let us pause on that last point. The United States is often urged to lead the world in climate action, regardless of cost or efficacy. But as the DOE report makes clear, our domestic efforts will have “undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate” and whatever marginal effects might accrue would only unfold over centuries. That is not policy, that is performance art.
The report’s challenge to prevailing climate dogma is not confined to global impact. Its most devastating conclusion lies in the economic analysis. CO2-induced warming, it asserts, is less damaging economically than conventionally believed. Why? For one, the benefits of carbon dioxide, especially in enhanced plant growth and agricultural productivity, have been systematically minimized. Atmospheric enrichment with CO2, the molecule that every leaf on Earth craves, has produced tangible greening of the planet, as satellite data has repeatedly confirmed. The report notes that elevated CO2 levels are associated with longer growing seasons, higher crop yields, and improved drought resistance.
To this, some will object: but what about the disasters? The hurricanes, the wildfires, the floods and droughts? Here, too, the DOE report punctures myth with data. Trends in extreme weather, whether hurricanes, tornadoes, or droughts, do not show a statistically significant increase in frequency or intensity in the US. The belief that climate change is driving more disasters is not borne out by the nation’s own historical record. The pattern is familiar: catastrophic headlines dominate the news cycle, but peer-reviewed long-term data often reveals no clear signal.
What the report urges us to reconsider is not science per se, but scientific selectivity. Which studies are emphasized, which outcomes are modeled, which scenarios are dramatized, these are not neutral choices. They reflect a politicization of climate discourse that has ossified around worst-case predictions. The DOE’s panel of independent scientists, drawing on physical science, climate modeling, economics, and academic research, concludes that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial.
Why? Because such policies incur massive economic costs today in exchange for theoretical benefits centuries in the future. The social cost of carbon, a number derived from notoriously elastic models, is used to justify expansive regulation and taxation. But the opportunity cost of mitigation is rarely tallied. The DOE report points to harms from these policies: deindustrialization, energy poverty, manufacturing flight, and disproportionate burdens on low-income families. In seeking to avert a hypothetical crisis tomorrow, we are creating a very real one today.
Consider Germany’s “Energiewende” experiment. Once celebrated as a model for renewable transition, it has left the country with some of the highest energy prices in the world, increased coal usage, and stagnating industrial output. That is not progress; that is regression clad in moral virtue.
The DOE report does not deny climate change. Rather, it questions whether the response, especially by the US, acting alone, is rational, proportional, or effective. A sound policy approach would weigh benefits against costs, factor uncertainty, and consider adaptation as a co-equal strategy. It would recognize that prosperity, technological advancement, and institutional resilience are the most reliable defenses against climate risk.
And what of the global context? China emits more CO2 than the US and EU combined, and continues to expand its coal fleet. India, rightly prioritizing growth and poverty alleviation, follows a similar path. Even under idealized global mitigation scenarios, temperature effects remain marginal for decades. If the goal is climate stability, US policy must reckon with this reality.
There is a deeper lesson here about humility. Climate models are not oracles, and long-range forecasts are fraught with uncertainties. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself acknowledges the “deep uncertainty” surrounding cloud feedbacks, ocean cycles, and aerosol effects. Yet policymakers cling to worst-case models like RCP8.5 as if they were certainties. The DOE report reminds us that science, when honest, acknowledges what it does not know.
The economic modeling is equally uncertain. How do we quantify the benefit of a slightly cooler planet in 2150? How do we discount the loss of economic growth, technological progress, and human well-being between now and then? These are not simple equations. They are philosophical judgments smuggled into spreadsheets.
One need not reject the premise of climate change to accept the report’s conclusion. One need only accept that climate risk exists alongside other risks—economic, geopolitical, social. A rational society does not bankrupt itself to prevent a hypothetical future while ignoring the very real suffering of its present.
This report ought to serve as a corrective. It does not deny that CO2 has climatic effects, but it insists we view those effects in context. It challenges the catechism of decarbonization as the sole moral and practical imperative. It urges policymakers to consider adaptation, resilience, and economic growth as indispensable tools in managing a changing climate.
To those who regard such conclusions as heresy, consider this: Truth does not fear scrutiny. If the consensus is as solid as claimed, it should welcome a challenge from a panel of independent scientists operating under a federal mandate. That is how science progresses, not through suppression, but through argument.
The American people deserve more than theatrical virtue-signaling. They deserve climate policies rooted in realism, not alarmism; in cost-benefit analysis, not eschatology. The DOE report offers a roadmap. We would do well to follow it.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
READ NEXT: Supreme Court Case Could Blow Up Democrats’ 2026 Strategy
WOW! Liberals and democrats were lying to us. I am shocked. NOT!
All those pushing climate change should drive EVs
This is an excellent and factual article, “DOE Report Upends Climate Alarmism: CO2 Not The Villain We Were Told”,
on the phony “Man-Made Global Warming Climate Change Scam & Lie” and the honest and open-minded science-based ‘Doe Report”!
The UN IPCC is a dishonest organization lacking scientific integrity as demonstrated over-and-over by their infamous ‘Climategate’ and ‘Hockey Stick Scandals, lies and misinformation such as their really ‘Big Lie”.
The IPCC “Climate Change Big Lie’ created as false leftist & globalist propaganda by the United Nations:
“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.β
Actually, atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is simply Beneficial and Absolutely Essential to all Plant & Animal Life on Earth and the Earth at a mere ~420 ppm today. WE NEED MUCH-MORE CO2, NOT LESS!
The following points are Proven Scientific Facts regarding Our Climate and appropriate Energy Needs:
ο§ Man, CO2 and the use of Fossil Fuels have NEVER had an INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT on the Earthβs Climate and its Temperatures!
ο§ Since the last extremely-cold major Ice-Age Glacial period 11,700 years ago, The Earthβs Climate has continued to Naturally cycle between Global Warming and Cooling periods.
ο§ Despite all the Climate Alarmist unscientific propaganda & claims, there has been NO Significant Global Warming for the last 25-years β Just a moderate βNatural Climate Variability temperature trend since 1998 reported by NASA temperature-monitoring satellites that accurately measure almost the full globe two-times per day, every day since they were deployed in Jan 1979.
See the monthly trends for yourself at βDrRoySpencer. Com/Latest Global Temperaturesβ.
ο§ Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a Pollutant, rather it is simply Beneficial & Essential for All Life, for both Plants and, in turn, All Animals due to the Food & Oxygen plants provide.
ο§ Atmospheric CO2-levels have NEVER Correlated NOR Caused Significant Changes in the Earthβs Climate Temperatures.
ο§ The Earthβs Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Effect has provided sufficient warming to keep the Earthβs Climate Habitable by Infrared Radiation (IR) among GHG-gas molecules in our Troposphere.
ο§ This rate of GHG Warming SLOWS as the GHG levels increase and eventually SATURATE the overlapping IR-frequency bands — STOPPING further GHG-Warming β Thus Preventing a βRun-Away Global Warming Crisisβ that has been & is still falsely claimed by the Political Left.
ο§ There is and has been βNO CLIMATE EMERGENCYβ as honestly declared & certified by around 33,500 experts, scientists and Nobel Laureates in formal reports in 2023 and 2015.
ο§ As well as Dire Warnings by top & esteemed scientists Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. and William Happer, Ph.D. that βFossil Fuels Must Not Be Eliminatedβ and that βNet Zero Efforts will have a Trivial Impact on Climate Temperatures (< 0.02-degrees Fahrenheit).
ο§ Especially since CO2-levels are Too Low Now at a mere 420 ppm which is Not very far above the 150 ppm Extinction Point for Plants which depend on CO2, Light and Water for their Photosynthesis Process that provides us with Food and all the Oxygen (O2) in the Air which we and all animals must breathe.
ο§ The Climate Alarmists have it All Wrong! We Need Much More CO2, Not Less!
ο§ Rational Scientists & farmers know that Optimum levels of CO2 are around 1,000 to 2,000 ppm of CO2 for Optimal Food Production and World Greening β Despite the phony Alarmist Claims that βIncreased CO2 will cause a βDangerous Global Warming Catastropheβ within the next 6-years.
ο§ Climate Alarmist are the real βDeniers of Scienceβ and the real Villains with all their false claims that waste taxpayer money on massive Solar, Wind, EVβs and Distract from the truth: βGlobal Warming Climate Cycles are followed by Global Cooling Climate Cyclesβ that may possibly be followed by the next fully-natural and extremely-cold Ice-Age Glacial period.
Note: Sent Comments and the above along with my contact info to the EPA Website Friday 8/01/2025.
All this attention misdirected by phony Climate Alarmists focusing on further Unlikely Warming is preventing most people and governments from realizing that Global Cooling is far more dangerous and much more likely!
The Real Danger is that No One is Adequately Planning and Preparing for the very likely Global Cooling (NOT WARMING) as soon as 2030 β 2050 AD!
The βGreen Energy & Global Warmingβ Scam
The Folly of Investment in βRenewable Energyβ when there is absolutely βNo Climate Emergencyβ and Solid Proof that Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is of No Danger and it is:
ο§ Simply Beneficial and Essential to ALL Plant & Animal Life on Earth, and that
ο§ CO2, currently at a mere ~420 ppm, is Extremely LOW, NOT HIGH as falsely Claimed by Alarmists β Not Far Above the 150 ppm Extinction Level for all Plants and, in turn Animals including Humans!
ο§ We Need Much More CO2, Not Less! Optimal CO2-levels are 1,000 ppm to 2,000 ppm for improved Crop Yields and Greening across the whole earth.
(Note: Despite False Alarmist Claims, CO2 changes has Never Caused or Correlate with global temperature changes since the Earthβs atmosphere formed about 4 billion years ago!)
According to tens-of-thousands of the top scientists and experts on climate and the physics of the Earthβs Atmosphere along with most other knowledgeable science professionals and rational individuals agree that there is βNo Climate Emergencyβ and we βMust Not Transition Away from Fossil Fuels & Nuclear Energyβ.
All the while leftist politicians have been pushing and foolishly investing in extraordinarily Dumb Energy Technology for our Power Grids such as Solar, Wind and EVβs which are the very worst for the environment and Donβt Work Efficiently or Donβt Work at All when it is: Too Cold or Too Hot, when the Wind Blows Too Little or Too Much, or at Night or when it is Too Cloudy.
Renewable Energy sources that are required to be constantly available & operational 24/7, like our nations grid, must have backup Power from Fossil Fuel, Nuclear or Hydro/Geo Thermal Power Plants to βInstantly Pick Up the Slackβ when Mother Nature varies it support – Greatly Complicating the energy systems and increasing the Cost pushing the cost of electricity and its plants much higher with far less reliability!
Net-Net: Solar & Wind Energy for our power grid is UNNECESSARY and FOOLISH since fossil fuel and nuclear systems result in much lower-cost and more-reliable electricity and work efficiently in Cold and Warmer Climate Conditions with a much smaller, more maintainable and longer-lasting footprint than the so-called Renewables!
This conclusion is confirmed by the outstanding book by Norman Rodgers:
βDumb Energy β A Critique of Wind and Solar Energyβ (2018)
which is a factual and engineering-based expose of the Green Movement & Investment in Solar & Wind β The very worst, unreliable, unnecessary and most-expensive energy technology with the shortest lifecycle of about only 20 years to replacement very low compared to our other energy tech options which has proven to be very bad for our environment!