Climate Science Under Siege: The Economic Risks of Politicizing the National Climate Assessment

The Trump administration’s abrupt dismissal of all contributors to the sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA6)—a congressionally mandated report required by law—marks a stark escalation in the politicization of climate science. Emails obtained by Reuters reveal that nearly 400 scientists and experts were abruptly released from their roles, with the administration citing a “reevaluation” of the report’s scope. This move, occurring against a backdrop of record-breaking global temperatures and escalating climate disasters, raises profound questions about the economic and policy consequences of sidelining scientific consensus.

The Facts and the Fallout

The NCA6, due for publication in 2028, is a legally binding obligation under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Its findings inform federal and local governments on climate adaptation strategies, from infrastructure resilience to disaster preparedness. By dismissing its authors, the administration has not only disrupted a peer-reviewed process but also ignored the report’s prior warnings: the fifth assessment (NCA5), published in 2023, projected that unchecked climate impacts could cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions annually by mid-century.

Critics, including the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), accuse the administration of advancing Project 225, a conservative policy agenda advocating stricter oversight of climate science contributors—a move perceived as catering to fossil fuel interests. Dr. Rachel Cleetus, a lead author on the NCA6’s coastal impacts chapter, called the dismissal a “reckless hatchet job,” arguing that the report’s findings are critical to mitigating risks like rising insurance premiums, food insecurity, and heat-related health crises.

The Economic Implications

The decision to sideline climate science has immediate and long-term economic repercussions.

1. Industry Uncertainty: The fossil fuel sector, which has historically opposed stringent climate regulations, may temporarily benefit from reduced scrutiny. However, the broader market is likely to penalize policy instability. Consider the stock performance of ExxonMobil (XOM) versus renewable energy leader NextEra Energy (NEE):
   
   While XOM has lagged due to ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) concerns, NEE has surged as investors prioritize companies aligned with climate resilience. The administration’s actions could accelerate this divide, as firms face pressure to decarbonize regardless of policy shifts.

2. Regulatory Risk: The NCA6’s cancellation undermines the legal requirement for a climate assessment, potentially exposing the government to lawsuits. A precedent-setting case is the 2019 lawsuit against the Trump administration for suppressing climate data, which cost the government millions and forced compliance. Legal experts warn that this latest move could trigger similar litigation, further diverting resources from critical climate preparedness.

3. Market Distrust: Investors increasingly demand transparency on climate risks. A 2022 BlackRock report highlighted that 80% of institutional investors now factor climate resilience into investment decisions. By sidelining science, the administration risks alienating global capital, which favors stable, evidence-based policy frameworks.

The Bottom Line: A Costly Gamble

The administration’s actions are not merely ideological—they are economically shortsighted. The NCA5 estimated that climate-related damages, such as wildfires and flooding, already cost the U.S. $200 billion annually. Without the NCA6’s updated data, policymakers will lack tools to address these escalating costs. Meanwhile, the global shift toward renewables and climate accountability is irreversible.

Renewable investments have outpaced fossil fuels since 2017, with a $400 billion gap in 2023 alone. This trend will accelerate as companies like Tesla (TSLA) and Vestas Wind Systems (VWS) capitalize on regulatory tailwinds abroad, even if U.S. policy lags.

Conclusion: A Precarious Bet on Denial

The dismissal of the NCA6 authors is a gamble with the U.S. economy’s future. By sidelining climate science, the administration risks compounding financial and reputational costs. Investors, meanwhile, are voting with their wallets: fossil fuel stocks are declining, while renewable energy and climate-resilient infrastructure continue to attract capital.

The stakes are existential. The NCA6’s prior findings warned that without aggressive emissions cuts, the U.S. could face annual climate damages exceeding $500 billion by 2050—a figure that grows with every year of inaction. The administration’s decision to bury this science is not just a political statement—it is an economic suicide note. Markets may forgive short-term instability, but the laws of physics and economics will exact a steep price for delayed action.

In the end, the real investors here are not Wall Street but future generations, whose prosperity hinges on heeding science, not sidelining it.