A group of leading scholars in climate and environmental economics have responded to the Trump administration’s July report questioning established facts about climate science and the economic implications of climate change.

The economists include authors of peer-reviewed research that has been foundational to understanding agricultural economics, climate damages, tipping points, the social cost of carbon, and benefit-cost analysis, including some of which is cited in the report – A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate – published on July 29 by the Department of Energy (DOE).

The DOE report called global warming “less damaging economically than commonly believed” and dismissed mitigation efforts as potentially “more harmful than beneficial.” The Critical Review was written by five scientists known for skepticism toward mainstream climate science who had been handpicked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright. Leading climate scientists have separately denounced the DOE report, calling it “misleading or fundamentally incorrect.”

The Environmental Protection Agency is using the DOE report to reconsider the Endangerment Finding – the scientific determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.

The economists’ full response, submitted as a public comment, can be viewed below and will be posted on Regulations.gov under the tracking number mf3-4fkk-n7xf.

Select key conclusions:

• “This report’s review of the relevant economics literature is woefully out of date; the selective referencing of dated research and non-peer reviewed essays misrepresents the state of knowledge; and this assessment fails to consider the past decade of peer-reviewed scholarship.”

• “The report employs an array of fallacies to give the impression that climate damages are small relative to other trends that are unrelated to the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on public health and welfare.”

• “The report grossly misstates the consensus of economists, who do not recommend a ‘wait and see’ approach, but instead overwhelmingly recommend efficient policies to support clean energy innovation and internalize the greenhouse gas externality as documented in the peer-reviewed literature.”

• “The report misrepresents the net effect of climate change impacts on U.S. agriculture. Climate change will cause significant, negative declines in corn and soybean yields.”

Media contact: David Trilling