Fantasy Climate Models Effectively Denied Energy to the Poor: The White House Just Set the Stage for Change

By Vijay Jayaraj

For two decades, the poorest half of humanity had its energy choices dictated by computer-generated climate predictions now considered to be implausible by the people who made them. Developing countries that are home to the impoverished should be following U.S. actions to abandon these flawed forecasts, which have driven destructive climate policies.

In August, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy opened a public comment period on a proposed amendment to the country’s Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5), a congressionally mandated report that steers American regulation, research funding, and infrastructure budgets.

The amendment would tell federal agencies that the United Nations’ unrealistic predictions of dangerous global warming from the industrial emissions of carbon dioxide can no longer be used as a reasonable basis for policy development.

According to the U.N.’s own reckoning, its most extreme predictions of warming were never based on science. They were the ceiling of a modeling exercise that used computers and assumptions with no basis in reality.

Matthew Wielicki, who directs the U.S. Global Change Research Program, pointed out that much of NCA5 rests on scenarios the field of climate science itself has shelved, recognizing that guidance built on an implausible future cannot produce sound decisions. He expects to hear objections to the proposed amendment from activists rather than researchers because the latter already have conceded the point.

The uncomfortable part is that this correction is coming from Washington rather than Delhi or Lagos or Manila. The governments that could least afford the irrational policy prescriptions of the climate industrial complex spent 20 years acquiescing to them. Their negotiators accepted conditions that no Western capital would have tolerated at a comparable stage of its nation’s industrial ascent.

State of Poverty Requires Policy Revisions

The 2024 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index counted 1.1 billion people in acute poverty across 112 countries. India has 234 million of them; Pakistan, 93 million; Ethiopia, 86 million; Nigeria, 74 million; and Democratic Republic of the Congo, 66 million. Those five countries are home to more than 48% of the world’s poor. The so-called deprivation indicators behind that index are electricity and cooking fuel.

A recent report issued by the International Energy Agency found 655 million people without electricity and roughly 2 billion still cooking over polluting fuels. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for more than 560 million of the first group and 970 million of the second. That region’s rural electricity deficit grew between 2010 and 2024, affecting 447 million people.

Those are the households whose coal plants were cancelled, whose gas projects lost financing, and whose grid connections were deferred – all on the authority of climate predictions that the modeling community has withdrawn from service.

The effect of climate hyperbole extended to international trade. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism entered a definitive phase in January, attaching costs to imported steel, aluminum, cement, fertilizer, hydrogen, and electricity.

India objected 29 times at the World Trade Organization between 2020 and 2024, arguing that the measure violated non-discrimination rules. Iron and steel make up 90% of Indian exports exposed to the EU tax.

Brussels based the trade barrier on climate predictions now considered implausible. Does the barrier now come down? Put the question to your trade minister. Then ask why nobody has.

For Africa, Asia, and Latin America, this is not a technical footnote in an American regulatory document. It is an opening to reclaim energy policy – and the associated economic benefits – from the manipulations of a criminally deceptive – or woefully incompetent – climate bureaucracy.

Leaders in victimized countries can either cling to a debunked climate agenda or rewrite energy laws to prioritize their own citizens. Choosing the former would disregard the millions suffering in poverty.

Originally published at The Western Journal, September 17th, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

Tags:

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 12 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
18 Comments
Scissor
September 19, 2026 6:43 am

Chickens come home to roost.

Reply to  Scissor
September 19, 2026 1:03 pm

hmmmm… that makes me want to crank up ChatGPT for an image making job. 🙂

September 19, 2026 7:07 am

“…a modeling exercise that used computers and assumptions with no basis in reality.”

e.g. modeling exercise TFK_bams09 and clones.

396 BB/333 “back”/63 duplicate assumed theoretical S-B calculation for 16 C BB Earth model with no basis in reality.

September 19, 2026 7:45 am

Strange how these countries invest in renewables, local production for solar and EVs or outright ban ICE car imports.

Don’t think it’s because of climate change.

Fran
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 19, 2026 8:39 am

It is because all development aid is either for renewables or depends on purchase of renewables. Morreover, the World Bank will not lend for real power sources.

Fran
Reply to  Fran
September 19, 2026 8:41 am

And, since the wealthy in these countries bleed off development aid into their own Swiss bank accounts, they keep the government policy oriented toward renewables.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 19, 2026 8:49 am

In 2025 renewable energy supply in Africa accounted for 1.8% of energy production – 0.9% each for wind and solar.

Energy Institute ‘2026 Statistical Review of World Energy’ (June 2026)

spetzer86
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 19, 2026 9:24 am

The really odd part is how China was ready to go with batteries and cheap EVs and is currently attempting to carpet the planet with them before their companies go belly-up. Almost like it was planned to go that way.

Reply to  spetzer86
September 19, 2026 1:29 pm

Really odd that they listen to engineers and scientists instead of lobbiest and billionairs…so they got better technology instead of reopening coal plants and worsening fuel economy standards.

leefor
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 19, 2026 8:03 pm

So tell us how many solar factories rely wholly on renewable energy.
And they are still building coal plants.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 19, 2026 10:16 am

Yes, it is apparent that you don’t think…

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 20, 2026 3:27 am

Strange how these countries invest in renewables, local production for solar and EVs or outright ban ICE car imports.

India is the only country in this group with significant domestic manufacturing of both solar equipment and electric vehicles, with around 210 GW/year of solar module manufacturing capacity and 27 GW/year of solar cell manufacturing capacity, alongside a large domestic EV manufacturing industry.

Outside India, manufacturing capacity is limited. Ethiopia has approximately 2 GW of solar-cell manufacturing capacity, making it the second-largest solar manufacturer in this group.

Nigeria has about 300 MW/year of solar-panel manufacturing capacity.

Pakistan has only limited solar-panel manufacturing and remains heavily dependent on imports.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has negligible solar or EV manufacturing, with its role in the clean-energy economy centred on supplying critical minerals such as cobalt and copper.

Clearly, your definition of “investment” is different from the real world

John Hultquist
September 19, 2026 8:32 am

 IEA: ” found 655 million people without electricity and roughly 2 billion still cooking over polluting fuels.” This is an astoundingly sad situation.
September 4, 1882 — 144 years ago — Thomas Edison’s first commercial power plant in the United States, the Pearl Street Station began operating with an initial load of 400 lamps and 82 customers. [Wikipedia]
Shortly thereafter, those with experience of Edison’s facility traveled across the USA and small electricity plants appeared in (then) remote places.
Example: In Ellensburg, Washington State, 1885-6 Exact date unknown—Sidney Z. Mitchell builds coal fired central electricity steam powered generation plant at 4th and Kittitas Street. (from: City of Ellensburg Light Department History)
The house I grew up in (some might say I haven’t yet) in a small town in western Pennsylvania had electricity — I’m over 80. The folks bought a refrigerator with a approximately 1 cubic foot freezer in 1950. Search images for: 1950S PHILCO REFRIGERATOR FREEZER
I have never not had reliably electricity.
There is something terribly wrong in the world and it is not CO2, global warming, or the dude named Donald.  

September 19, 2026 1:02 pm

“climate predictions now considered to be implausible by the people who made them”

They should be held responsible. Many tried to tell them they had it wrong so they can’t claim a universal consensus, not that that would matter anyway. They did lousy science then they preached the climate doom.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 19, 2026 1:25 pm

Look how the the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists have damaged the economies of the UK, Germany, Australia and the states of California and New York, for example. All the IPCC workers should be arrested and thrown in jail for perpetrating scientific fraud and uttering false climate information.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 20, 2026 4:15 am

One of those IPCC clowns is here in Wokeachusetts promoting something called proforestation- the goal of which is to end cutting all trees- in particular, to end all forestry. he denies it but that is truly is goal.

The Expulsive
Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 20, 2026 6:27 am

We have one of those clowns running Canada

Bob
September 19, 2026 2:43 pm

Very nice Vijay. Nothing shows the heartless and senseless nature of international government more than the actions they have taken in the name of CAGW. Time to cut them down to size.