������Ƶ

The publication of a recent US Department of Energy report, which evaluates the impact of greenhouse gases on the American climate, has triggered a debate that has long been whispered outside Western capitals but rarely acknowledged within them: How reliable is climate science and how wise has it been to entrust such an important subject to the shifting trends in Western politics and academia?

In recent decades, climate change has been treated not simply as a scientific challenge but as a moral crusade. International conferences, sweeping pledges and grand declarations have often run far ahead of financial feasibility. Policymakers, particularly in the West, pushed ambitious timelines for “energy transition” and “net zero,” mostly based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s warning with very high confidence that anthropogenic warming is the primary driver of observed warming.

However, there is uncertainty concerning the exact magnitude, pace and regional effects. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which uses the most rigorous climate science for its periodic reports, admits that attributing short-lived weather events to climate change is difficult.

The US Department of Energy report, by opening the door to reassessing how greenhouse gases actually affect the climate, should be welcomed as an opportunity to depoliticize climate science and anchor global action to evidence, economic realities and innovation.

For a start, the climate is too important to be left to the short attention spans of Western politicians. Political cycles last four or five years; by contrast, the climate operates on scales of decades or centuries. When one party is in power, climate policies are inflated with lofty promises and costly commitments. When the political pendulum swings, those policies are dismantled or reversed. This lurching from one extreme to another has made genuine progress nearly impossible.

The loudest voices on climate policy have often been a Western academic and activist elite with unapologetically liberal worldviews. That perspective has not always matched the harsh realities of developing economies, where cheap, reliable fossil fuels remain indispensable to growth, stability and poverty alleviation. The insistence on abrupt transitions has sometimes been little more than dogma dressed as science.

Despite decades of rhetoric warning of imminent scarcity, the world remains rich in fossil energy. Estimates of proven reserves — technologically and economically recoverable at today’s prices — suggest that coal, oil and gas can continue to support the global economy for decades at present consumption. This is not an argument for destroying the planet but a reminder that the foundations of continued industrial growth and energy security remain intact. To pretend otherwise is to live in a world of illusion.

Many of the costly policies forced on the international community under the climate banner were not backed up by scientific certainty. Subsidies for renewable technologies, bans on internal combustion engines and punitive carbon taxes have often preceded the technological readiness or affordability of alternatives. The resulting backlash — from European farmers to British consumers — was almost inevitable. It is a cautionary tale of what happens when ideology overtakes science.

The insistence on abrupt transitions has sometimes been little more than dogma dressed as science.

Arnab Neil Sengupta

The return of Donald Trump to the White House has already overturned many of the assumptions that informed Western climate policy. For some, this is a betrayal. But it could very well be a reset. By stripping climate change of its ideological baggage, the world can rebuild an agenda that is based on scientific evidence, technological progress and economic pragmatism.

This does not mean abandoning renewable energy or electric vehicles. They remain attractive for reasons that have little to do with climate models: cleaner air in crowded cities, public health improvements, reduced dependence on imported fuel, and the creation of cutting-edge industries. Gulf countries, for instance, are pursuing net-zero strategies not because Washington or Brussels demand it, but because diversification and innovation are central to their national interests.

For all we know, technological breakthroughs will ultimately do more to solve climate challenges than conferences or slogans. Advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, green hydrogen and next-generation batteries are emerging clean energy fields that require investment and patience. Depoliticizing climate science would allow these technologies to be judged on their merits, not on the ideological leanings of their advocates.

To be certain, it would be naive to dismiss the risks altogether. To state that fossil fuels remain abundant is not to claim that their continued use will carry no costs.

Researchers believe climate change has made torrential downpours more frequent across the globe. Extreme weather events — floods, fires and hurricanes — are increasingly visible and, for many communities, they do seem to be intensifying. Even though proving that any one storm, heat wave or drought was caused by global warming is difficult, the lived reality cannot be ignored.

Average global temperatures continue to rise, having reached 1.48 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels in 2023, and each summer seems hotter than the last. This affects agriculture, water security and public health. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said that 2024 was the warmest year on land and sea since record-keeping began in 1850, while the 10 warmest years in the 175-year record have all occurred during the past decade.

To sum up, the credibility of climate science itself suffers when uncertainties are glossed over. As climate scientists themselves keep saying, predictions are probabilistic, not absolute. Admitting this truth openly will strengthen public trust and allow societies, both rich and poor, to prepare better for the worst-case scenarios.

The US Department of Energy report should be seen not as a setback to climate action but as an invitation to realign it with reality. Multiple studies have found that policy reversals tied to elections stall investment and slow transitions. Climate science should not be a hostage to the doctrines of the fashionable left or the populist right. It should be the rock-solid common foundation on which long-term national strategies are built.

• Arnab Neil Sengupta is a senior editor at Arab News. X: @arnabnsg