The Biden administration relied on dubious and misleading scientific material to support its decision to suspend new approvals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals.

In January, the Biden administration suspended approvals for new LNG export terminals so the Department of Energy (DOE) could expand its review to include the facilities' climate impacts. The move has been praised by climate change activists but equally condemned by industry groups and elected Republicans. .in written testimony In early February, Department of Energy Deputy Secretary David Turk defended the policy in Congress, pointing to billion-dollar disasters (BDD) as an illustration of the severity of climate change, effectively calling it a “worst-case scenario.” He also mentioned predictions based on emissions. A scenario that has been ridiculed by critics for failing to accurately predict current emissions, let alone the future. Both statistics are misleading and questionable.

Turk said in his testimony that since 2019, when the agency last released estimates of the full lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts of U.S. LNG exports, “our understanding of the economic and human impacts of climate change has only deepened.” ”.

Mr. Turk first compared the number of BDD events recorded in 2019 and 2023, finding that in 2019 there were 14 natural disasters that caused more than $1 billion in damage, while in 2023 there were 14 natural disasters that caused more than $1 billion in damage. It was observed that there were 28 such cases. These statistics are sourced from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Management (NOAA). (Related: Appliance advocates support study to push for ban on gas stoves)

David Turk's Testimony by nick pope On Scribd

However, using BDD events as a proxy for weather conditions is misleading for several reasons. This is primarily due to increased population and asset density in coastal areas that are susceptible to natural disasters. The increasing potential for losses in coastal areas means that in 1980, the exact same hurricane in the exact same location might not have caused the $1 billion in damages it does today. It means that there is.

NOAA has acknowledged as much, previously telling DCNF that “the number and cost of disasters has increased over time due to a combination of three things: (i.e., where we go) and increased vulnerability (i.e., where we go).” Construction; how we build) and climate change are increasing the frequency of certain extreme events. a billion–dollar disaster. ”

In other words, there are several factors other than those related to weather conditions and climate change that influence the frequency of BDD events. Notably, NOAA does not express the cost of natural disasters in terms of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Roger Pilke Jr. — an academic who has written extensively about politicized science and considers climate change a real and serious threat — conducted his own research. analysis It was found that “the losses from the North American catastrophe as a percentage of U.S. GDP do not clearly show an increasing trend.''

“There is no peer-reviewed science that attributes part of the increase in disaster losses to climate change,” Pirque previously told DCNF. “To see evidence of climate change, look at climate data, not economic data.” (Related: 'A national embarrassment': Key statistics used in Biden administration's landmark climate report are misleading)

'Hand-picked experts': Biden's groundbreaking climate report written by environmental activists with ties to liberal dark financehttps://t.co/dhWjJS5t8p

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 29, 2023

In addition to the BDD statistics, Turk argued that climate change could cost the federal government $2 trillion a year in revenue by 2100, stating: analysis It is conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

However, the OMB analysis relies on what is effectively a “worst-case scenario'' projection. Typical Concentration Pathways 8.5 (RCP8.5) Scenario. RCP8.5 is essentially a term used by climate scientists to describe a situation in which the world continues to use fossil fuels and produce emissions without changing course.

The OMB analysis cited by Turk shows that the $2 trillion hit to annual revenue means that “compared to the Financial Greening Network's counterfactual that there is no further warming predicted, climate change will reduce U.S. GDP.” This could occur under a scenario in which a 10.0 percent reduction in Under current policy, the system becomes a tail risk. ” OMB’s analysis cites the Greening the Financial System Network’s analysis of various climate change scenarios. funded with a grant from bloomberg philanthropy And that Climate Works Foundationtwo centre-left philanthropic foundations focused on climate change-related initiatives.

Under the RCP8.5 scenario, the US GDP loss by 2100 is estimated to be 10.52%. according to This echoes OMB's claim, cited by Turk in testimony defending the suspension of licenses for LNG export terminals, that climate change could reduce annual federal revenue by $2 trillion by 2100. The assumption was the same as that made by OMB to qualify. .

However, the RCP8.5 model has significant flaws.

For example, in 2020 paper Two climate scientists published in the journal Nature argue that RCP8.5 is linked to climate change, in part because global carbon dioxide emissions are lower than the levels predicted by RCP8.5. found that it should not be treated as a reference or reference case for potential consequences. The paper argues that the discrepancy between reality and RCP8.5 forecasts will only grow stronger over time, and to emphasize this point, the International Energy Agency (IEA) 2019 It cites emissions projections for 2019.

“RCP8.5 predicts that global per capita coal consumption will increase sixfold by 2100, but the International Energy Agency and other energy forecasting groups predict that coal consumption has already peaked. RCP8.5 also predicts that carbon dioxide emissions will increase rapidly until at least 2300, when the Earth will be over 2,000 years old. [parts per million] on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” Pirquet wrote in a 2021 paper. analysis He is a co-author with Justin Ritchie, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia's Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. “But again, according to the IEA and other bodies, fossil energy emissions are likely to have plateaued and will reach net-zero emissions by the end of this century, or much sooner. There is a possibility that we will achieve this. There is currently no projection that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels will increase dramatically over the next 50, 100, or 300 years.”

Putting aside the reliability of the statistics Mr. Turk cited in his testimony, energy sector experts previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the decision would reduce global emissions, while at the same time allowing countries such as Russia and Qatar to He said it would not be possible to give power to foreign production. Those wishing to import U.S. LNG are not planning to abandon long-term import plans just because the Biden administration changes the schedule for new export capacity, so they are trying to fill the gap by producing cleaner U.S. gas. It will not rely on Russian or Qatari LNG. experts told DCNF.

The Department of Energy and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.