In an official report dated July 2025, "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledged a warming trend since the onset of the industrial era. The government conceded that human activity may have contributed to greenhouse gas pollution, yet stresses that, given the scale of natural variations, such attribution remains difficult. The report concluded that the only rational response is adaptation — an approach that presupposes technological progress and the creation of wealth.
Crucially, the report explains that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself, the economic damage from global warming is secondary, even negligible, compared to other factors. Moreover, it concludes that the damage caused by global warming is far less devastating than that wrought by misguided climate policies, especially the European Union's totalitarian ambition of a "zero-carbon society."
Moderate in tone, rigorously reasoned, and impeccably structured, the report sounds the death knell for "climate change ideology," a cult which, under the pretext of "saving the climate," seeks to sacrifice humanity— particularly in the West.
1. Global Warming Causes Only Negligible Impact on the Economy
The report finds that carbon dioxide–induced global warming has a far smaller economic impact than generally assumed. This was acknowledged by the IPCC in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), Chapter 10, p. 662:
"For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers.... Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices... and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change."
Aggressive mitigation strategies, the report notes, are more harmful than beneficial, as their exorbitant costs far outweigh their modest impact on global climate. The destruction of the industrial base that is supposed to fund the "energy transition" — as in Europe — is presented as practically and economically counterproductive.
2. Negligible Effects of U.S. CO₂ emissions
While the United States is a major emitter of greenhouse gases, it accounts for only about 14% of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. Thus, even a drastic domestic reduction would have only a marginal effect on global atmospheric concentrations.
Reaching net-zero emissions in the U.S., for instance, would barely affect global temperatures, especially as major emitters like China and India continue to increase their output. The report deems the direct impact of U.S. emission cuts on the global climate as "undetectable," with any measurable effects emerging only after long delays — casting serious doubt on the wisdom of ambitious unilateral measures.
If this is true for the U.S. with its 14% share of global emissions, what should be said of Europe, which accounts for barely 6%?
3. There Is No Trend of Weather Events Becoming More Extreme
Historical U.S. data reveal no statistically significant increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events—hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts. This objective finding challenges alarmist narratives such as those promoted by media outlets such as The New York Times and CNN, which routinely claim a causal link between human activity, climate change and weather disasters.
4. Beneficial Effects of CO₂
Higher CO₂ concentrations stimulate plant growth, drive global "greening" and enhance agricultural productivity. The report notes that atmospheric CO₂ enrichment boosts photosynthesis, with satellite studies such as NASA's showing expanded vegetation cover — particularly in semi-arid regions including the Sahel, India, and parts of Asia.
Global plant and crop vegetation has increased by roughly 15-20% since the start of the industrial era, largely due to CO₂ fertilization. This greening has slightly reduced ocean alkalinity, with mixed impacts on coral reefs — notably, the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef.
5. Limitations of Climate Models
Global climate models apparently overestimate future warming due to extreme emission scenarios and exaggerated predictions of climate sensitivity. Estimates vary widely (from 1.8 °C to 5.7 °C for a doubling of CO₂). Models also tend to produce projections that are too "hot" compared to recent observations. The report criticizes the excessive use of the high-emissions "RCP8.5" global warming scenario, which lead to misleading projections, particularly regarding a rise in sea levels and its regional impact, and write that:
"RCP8.5 scenario is a misleading and implausible high-end storyline, it is not a 'base case' or business-as-usual projection."
The authors add that its use has led to a literature "imbalanced in an apocalyptic direction."
"[Pielke Jr. and Ritchie] found that some 16,800 scientific papers published between 2010 and 2020 used the RCP8.5 scenario, with about 4,500 of the articles linking RCP8.5 to the concept of 'business-as-usual.'"
6. Scientific Uncertainties
Attributing climate change and extreme weather to human CO₂ emissions remains overflowing with uncertainty, due to:
- Natural climate variability.
- Limitations in available data.
- Gaps in climate modelling.
For instance, lower stratospheric temperatures have shown no significant trend since 2000, contrary to model predictions of CO₂-driven cooling (source: AR6 WG1 Ch 2 pp. 327-9). This suggests that natural factors — such as solar flares or volcanic events — may be more influential in certain climate patterns.
Conclusion
The report disputes the dominant alarmist discourse by pointing out that media coverage exaggerates negative effects while ignoring positives such as CO₂ fertilization.
Authored for the US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright by five independent scientists — Prof. John Christy, Prof. Judith Curry, Prof. Steven Koonin, Prof. Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer — it draws on robust scientific literature and data.
When Prof. Samuel Furfari and I had the honor of hosting Koonin in Brussels in March 2023, the mainstream media conspicuously avoided the event. Instead, in keeping with their ideological playbook, they branded Koonin—who served as Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy under President Barack Obama—a "climate skeptic" and "denier".
Today, the climate alarmists finally seem to be in retreat, while Kooning and his colleagues are liberating science.
If Europe takes science seriously, it really needs to restore energy freedom -- the right of each member state to use the energy sources that suit it, without authoritarian and arbitrary interference from "Brussels."
Drieu Godefridi is a jurist (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain), philosopher (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain) and PhD in legal theory (Paris IV-Sorbonne). He is an entrepreneur, CEO of a European private education group and director of PAN Medias Group. He is the author of The Green Reich (2020).
