In their response to a “Request for Information on Climate-Related Financial Risk” Fed. Reg. 34856 (July 21,2022), world renowned scientists William Happer (Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University) and Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) made it plain that not only is there no financial risk to fossil fuel use or CO2 production, but on the contrary it will be “disastrous” if fossil fuel and CO2 production is reduced to zero.
SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES THERE IS NO CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIAL RISK CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2, BUT THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS TRANSITION RISK CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE WORLDWIDE AND THE U. S. IF FOSSIL FUEL USE AND CO2 EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED TO “NET ZERO”
August 8, 2022
We (Happer and Lindzen) are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades.
In our scientific opinion, there is no scientific basis for the CFTC inquiry. Real science demonstrates there is no climate emergency and there are no climate-related financial or other risks caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
Frankly, the “science” cited to support of the CFTC inquiry and possible action is merely government opinion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), which is not science and cannot be used as the scientific basis for any CFTC or other government action.
Moreover, there will be a disastrous transition risk for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the country by reducing fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions to “net zero.” Contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food. Reducing CO2 will reduce the amount of food available for the poor and people worldwide.
And, without fossil fuels there will be no low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food.
Thus, with all due respect, the Commission should not adopt any guidance, interpretations, policy statements, or regulations, or take other action on the erroneous science there is a climate-related financial or any other risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2. If any such action is taken, it should be ruled invalid by the courts.
Here’s the science why… [See entire response here]