US

Executive Orders on Energy and Climate

Question A:

The new administration has issued three executive orders related to energy and climate:

Declaring a National Energy Emergency: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-energy-emergency/
'The United States’ insufficient energy production, transportation, refining, and generation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to our Nation’s economy, national security, and foreign policy. In light of these findings, I hereby declare a national emergency.'

Insufficient energy production, transportation, refining, and generation constitute a substantial threat to the US economy.

Responses

© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
15%
0%
30%
33%
11%
9%
2%

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
48%
35%
6%
9%
2%

Question B:

Unleashing American Energy: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/
'The calculation of the “social cost of carbon” is marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation… rendering the United States economy internationally uncompetitive… the Administrator of the EPA shall issue guidance to address these harmful and detrimental inadequacies, including consideration of eliminating the “social cost of carbon” calculation from any Federal permitting or regulatory decision.'

Eliminating the ‘social cost of carbon’ calculation from any Federal permitting or regulatory decision would substantially improve the international competitiveness of the US economy.

Responses

© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
15%
2%
30%
33%
17%
2%
0%

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
51%
31%
16%
2%
0%

Question C:

Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/
'In recent years, the United States has purported to join international agreements and initiatives that do not reflect our country’s values or our contributions to the pursuit of economic and environmental objectives… The United States Ambassador to the United Nations shall immediately submit formal written notification of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.'

Withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement will deliver a measurable boost to US economic growth over the next four years.

Responses

© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
15%
0%
24%
37%
17%
7%
0%

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
42%
37%
17%
5%
0%

Question A Participant Responses

Participant
University
Vote
Confidence
Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
While more energy production can increase GDP in the short run, there is no shortage of energy or much evidence that low energy production is a "substantial" threats to the US economy.
Aguiar
Mark Aguiar
Princeton
Strongly Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
The US needs to dramatically expand electricity generation capacity from noncarbon sources and transmission line capacity as the economy switches from fossil fuels.
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
The US is the world's largest gasoline exporter, and a net energy exporter. How could we be it that we are facing a domestic energy crisis or shortage?
-see background information here
Banerjee
Abhijit Banerjee
MIT
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Bergemann
Dirk Bergemann
Yale
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
Brunnermeier
Markus Brunnermeier
Princeton Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
We are a net exporter so it is hard to see how there is a crisis of underproduction.
-see background information here
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
There are fast-growing demands on US energy production and transmission, including from AI. I'm uncertain about how hard it will be to meet these needs. It would be better to meet them with sustainable forms of production than with heavily CO2-emitting sources.
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Einav
Liran Einav
Stanford
Disagree
1
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Glaeser
Edward Glaeser
Harvard
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Strongly Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
We are swimming in energy, which is good for the US and for the world.
Hart
Oliver Hart
Harvard
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Hoynes
Hilary Hoynes
Berkeley
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Hurst
Erik Hurst
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Energy production in the US is at an all-time high. Energy production was flat during the W Bush administration but grew rapidly during both the Obama and Biden administrations. Any claim of an emergency is just an "alternative fact".
-see background information here
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Look at what misguided energy policies have done to the German and UK economies.
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
In case you want to see the actual data see this link, we produce more than we consume
-see background information here
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
The threat is not inadequate supply, but too much reliance on fossil fuel, which threatens not only the US but the world through climate effects. The Trump administration denies this threat, likely making things worse.
Pathak
Parag Pathak
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Samuelson
Larry Samuelson
Yale
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
There remain valuable opportunities to invest in infrastructure and green energy, but current US energy production is adequate and does not constitute an emergency.
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
The US has become recently a net exporter of energy and petroleum products.
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
A joke.
Scott Morton
Fiona Scott Morton
Yale
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Shapiro
Carl Shapiro
Berkeley
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Shimer
Robert Shimer
University of Chicago
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Stantcheva
Stefanie Stantcheva
Harvard
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Stock
James Stock
Harvard
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
,WTI oil price is 25% below its 20-year mean, domestic oil and gas production are at record levels, U.S. is net exporter of gas and oil and world's largest LNG exporter. Solar and wind and battery projects are waiting to connect to the grid to meet data center demand. Etc.
-see background information here
-see background information here
Stokey
Nancy Stokey
University of Chicago
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Syverson
Chad Syverson
Chicago Booth
Strongly Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Strongly Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
It's not "insufficient" production/transportation/refining/generation that is a threat, the threat comes from the fact that energy use (especially fossil fuels) has never been charged its full cost.
Werning
Ivan Werning
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History

Question B Participant Responses

Participant
University
Vote
Confidence
Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Social cost of carbon is difficult to compute and few experts would say that current estimates are fully accurate. Nevertheless, such an estimate is a very important object for public policy in view of the very well-documented negative effects of carbon emissions.
Aguiar
Mark Aguiar
Princeton
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
This is pure ideological backlash from people who categorically reject scientific conclusions when the science is inconvenient. These are the same people who believe that windmills cause cancer and that DEI causes plane crashes.
Banerjee
Abhijit Banerjee
MIT
Strongly Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Bergemann
Dirk Bergemann
Yale
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
Brunnermeier
Markus Brunnermeier
Princeton Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Strongly Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Strongly Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
The US can't compete well if it ignores the cost of carbon emissions.
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Einav
Liran Einav
Stanford
Disagree
1
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Glaeser
Edward Glaeser
Harvard
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Eliminating one form of regulation is unlikely to do all that much, given the web of regulations that will remain.
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
It will reduce regulatory burden and that will benefit the US economy today. Of course, government should aim to improve the well-being of US citizens more broadly and this requires balancing managing climate risks and growth (not choosing to believe the former does not exist).
Hart
Oliver Hart
Harvard
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Hoynes
Hilary Hoynes
Berkeley
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Hurst
Erik Hurst
Chicago Booth
Disagree
2
Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
American work on SCC is abysmal and driven more by ideology than science. Conservatives work to suppress innovation in this area. The solution is to do better work, not take the Trumpian "ignorance is bliss" approach.
-see background information here
-see background information here
-see background information here
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Again, look at how costly these policies have been in Western Europe, particularly the UK and Germany.
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Maybe we get a short run boost from increasing brown production, but the rest of the world may move (and demand) cleaner sources.
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Eliminating cost-of-carbon calculations might well improve the U.S.'s competitive position in the short run, since shifting away from fossil fuels is undoubtedly costly. But the long-term impact would very likely be negative.
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Pathak
Parag Pathak
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Samuelson
Larry Samuelson
Yale
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Some US firms would become more competitive is they could ignore the social cost of their activities, but there are more important factors determining the competitiveness of the US economy, such as innovation.
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Calculations of social cost of carbon are complicated and necessarily imprecise. However they are based on good empirical science. Ignoring SCC will make US products less competitive, specially as other countries adopt Carbon border adjustment mechanisms.
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
There may be a small boost to competitiveness, but there will be a large hit to the environment.
Scott Morton
Fiona Scott Morton
Yale
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Making decisions under uncertainty, sometimes concerning long-lived investments, should include the best possible information about future costs.
Shapiro
Carl Shapiro
Berkeley
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Shimer
Robert Shimer
University of Chicago
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Stantcheva
Stefanie Stantcheva
Harvard
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Stock
James Stock
Harvard
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
The biggest regulation that has taken effect and used the SCC are CAFE rules but they apply to domestic sales of both domestic and imported vehicles so do not touch international competitiveness. Power prices would go up from the power plant rule but only slightly - small effect
Stokey
Nancy Stokey
University of Chicago
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Syverson
Chad Syverson
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Strongly Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Carbon emissions are a global bad, so the proposal to free ride is tempting. Other countries make the same calculation, which threatens seriously bad outcomes. The US is big enough to make a difference in getting the actual cost of carbon incorporated into the price of energy.
Werning
Ivan Werning
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History

Question C Participant Responses

Participant
University
Vote
Confidence
Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
We are faced with many global challenges, including climate change, pandemics, AI safety and nuclear nonproliferation. In each case, global cooperation is key. Withdrawing from international agreements, esp. the second time around for Paris accord, deeply damages such cooperation
Aguiar
Mark Aguiar
Princeton
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
In the short run, creating more pollution without heed to longterm health or climate consequences will probably increase growth, just like taking a dose of a methamphetamine will bring on temporary euphoria.
Banerjee
Abhijit Banerjee
MIT
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Bergemann
Dirk Bergemann
Yale
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
Brunnermeier
Markus Brunnermeier
Princeton Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Strongly Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
The US might be able free-ride to some potential relative national benefit, but over a few years,. I don't foresee a measurable boost to US growth from a withdrawal from Paris the Agreement, especially if the growth is measured net of the cost of climate damage.
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Einav
Liran Einav
Stanford
Disagree
1
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Glaeser
Edward Glaeser
Harvard
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
In isolation, the withdrawal probably has little impact on growth. But, difficult to separate from other efforts to remove penalties (subsidies) for carbon emissions (zero carbon energy sources). So, likely increases growth in next 4 year & increases future climate change
Hart
Oliver Hart
Harvard
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Hoynes
Hilary Hoynes
Berkeley
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Hurst
Erik Hurst
Chicago Booth
Strongly Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
I don't see how any of these international agreements hurt American productivity since they were not enforceable. Global warming is an international problem and will require international cooperation to solve. A USA exit can only hurt the situation.
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Best guess would be that over this horizon withdrawing is favorable for growth, but the wildcard is whether consumer demand (or state regulations, e.g. California) drive business decisions. Too early to tell.
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Commitments under the Paris agreement are non-binding. Withdrawing is symbolic but does not in itself change US policy options.
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Not participating in the effort to curb climate change will hurt the U.S. (and the world) in the long run, but it's hard to say exactly when the negative consequences will set in.
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Strongly Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Renewables are an important potential source of growth.
Pathak
Parag Pathak
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Samuelson
Larry Samuelson
Yale
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
However it may boost Chinese world leadership
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Almost pure symbolism -- this is a voluntary agreement with no impact on growth. Leaving it will prevent our having a seat at the table in important negotiations.
Scott Morton
Fiona Scott Morton
Yale
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Shapiro
Carl Shapiro
Berkeley
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Shimer
Robert Shimer
University of Chicago
Disagree
1
Bio/Vote History
Stantcheva
Stefanie Stantcheva
Harvard
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Stock
James Stock
Harvard
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
The Paris agreement is nonbinding and voluntary. It also refers only to domestic emissions so if growth is to come from O&G exports those are burned abroad and don't count against the U.S. Paris NDC.
Stokey
Nancy Stokey
University of Chicago
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Syverson
Chad Syverson
Chicago Booth
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
In a narrow causal sense, I expect no effect. Withdrawal might be correlated with other decisions that influence outcomes in unknown directions.
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
4 years is probably too short to see any climate impacts of the possibly larger emissions that might result. So there might be some short run measured gains from looser regulation. Of course those gains are mismeasured, since they ignore the extra depreciation of natural capital.
Werning
Ivan Werning
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History