The Trump administration's directive to federal agencies halting the inclusion of climate change economic impacts in policy formulation, unless mandated by law, has ignited a wave of criticism. This move effectively eliminates the "social cost of carbon," an essential metric for estimating greenhouse gas emissions' economic impact. Previously valued at $42 per ton under Obama and later adjusted to $190 under Biden, the metric now faces dismissal. Critics argue this undermines scientific consensus and weakens regulatory justification against polluting industries.

Environmental advocates and scientists express deep concern over the implications of this decision. The removal of this critical tool complicates efforts to establish regulations limiting emissions, favoring fossil fuel lobbyists while disregarding communities affected by climate-related disasters. This shift emphasizes the importance of public support for leaders committed to evidence-based climate policies.

Redefining Climate Policy: The Role of Economic Metrics

Under the new administrative order, federal agencies face significant changes in how they approach climate policy-making. By excluding the "social cost of carbon" from consideration, the administration challenges established methods of evaluating environmental regulations' economic impact. This exclusion creates uncertainty around future policy decisions, as it departs from previous administrations' reliance on robust scientific and economic data to guide environmental rulemaking.

This transformation stems from the administration's assertion that uncertainties surround the human contribution to climate change. Jeffrey B. Clark, acting White House regulatory chief, argues that these uncertainties warrant a reevaluation of how climate metrics influence policy. However, experts like Rutgers climate scientist Robert E. Kopp dispute this claim, asserting that dismissing the social cost of carbon arbitrarily ignores well-established science and economics. Michael Greenstone, instrumental in developing the metric, warns that such a shift risks basing policy on subjective feelings rather than factual evidence. Consequently, without this pivotal tool, justifying regulations aimed at curtailing emissions becomes substantially more challenging.

Implications for Environmental Regulation and Public Action

As federal agencies adapt to this altered landscape, the consequences for environmental regulation become increasingly apparent. By sidelining the social cost of carbon, the administration hands an advantage to fossil fuel lobbyists while undermining efforts to protect communities suffering from climate-induced calamities. This development underscores the necessity for public engagement in supporting leaders dedicated to addressing climate change through scientifically grounded approaches.

The ripple effects extend beyond immediate policy considerations. Communities grappling with fires, floods, and droughts linked to global warming find themselves further marginalized as their plight receives diminished attention in policy discussions. Meanwhile, the absence of a reliable metric like the social cost of carbon hampers the ability to implement meaningful regulations targeting polluting industries. Advocates emphasize the importance of choosing plant-based diets, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and endorsing leaders who prioritize climate science. These actions collectively contribute to fostering a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. As public awareness grows, so does the potential for transformative change, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and proactive measures in combating climate change.