Comments on: Macron invites Americans upset over Trump exit from climate pact to find a ‘second homeland’

By: D. Posnett MD

D. Posnett MD — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:55:37 +0000

umh? Lets look at some fact checkers in regard to those 6.5 Mio jobs saved:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/factcheck-shows-trumps-climate-speech-was-full-of-misleading-statements/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-paris-climate-change-statistics-facts-wrong-fact-check-misleading-flawed-statistics-27-a7769826.html

and the source of the 6.5Mio jobs saved is this mysterious organization called NERA:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/19/revealed-reuters-ids-nera-economic-consulting-third-party-contractor-doe-lng-export-study

Revealed: NERA Economic Consulting is Third Party Contractor for DOE LNG Export Study

Reuters has revealed the identity of the mysterious third party contractor tasked to publish the economic impact study on LNG (liquefied natural gas) exports on behalf of the Department of Energy (DOE). Its name: NERA Economic Consulting.

“NERA” is shorthand for National Economic Research Associates, an economic consulting firm SourceWatch identifies as the entity that published a June 2011 report on behalf of coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). ACCCE’s report concluded, “clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.”

That report went so far to say that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of the coal-generated electrcity sector would amount to some 1.5 million lost jobs over the next four years.

NERA was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In Oct. 2004, The Guardian described Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News.

According to NERA’s website, the late Alfred E. Kahn, the “father of deregulation,” advised NERA’s 1961 foundation.

In 2010, NERA published a letter to the New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protest the prospective closure of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants.

A NERA report from earlier this year provided the basis for the popular King Coal refrain that the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule would cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars and “kill” 180,000-215,000 jobs.

These figures were picked up and cited by climate change denier U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in June when he spoke out against President Barack Obama’s mythological “war on coal,” as well as by the Republican Policy Committee in a May policy paper titled, “Obama’s War on Coal.”

With a track record like this, it’s best to view whatever report NERA produces …with extreme skepticism.

By: bcolbath42

bcolbath42 — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:55:37 +0000

I can’t let Dr. Posnett’s generalized condemnation of the trustworthiness of NERA go without response. It is one of the most respected economic consultant groups in the US. I have worked with NERA many times over the last 30 years and have always found them to be scrupulously principled.

By: D. Posnett MD

D. Posnett MD — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:55:37 +0000

It is not my opinion or condemnation, but rather that of https://www.desmogblog.com as indicated with the full link in the above comment. Personally, I had never heard of NERA. That is why I googled them to get more info. The post which I copied verbatim, is from 2012. Desmogblog are Vancouver-based and can be reached at https://www.desmogblog.com/contact_us

At any rate, the WH numbers in question (6.5 Mio jobs saved) have been criticized elsewhere too:
by Marc Landler in the NYTimes from today.
Trump, Prioritizing Economy Over Climate, Cites Disputed Premises
….
The president referred to a published study to claim that the climate pact would result in “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025,” of which 440,000 would be in manufacturing. By 2040, he said, the losses would balloon to 6.5 million industrial jobs, or $3 trillion in lost economic output, or about $7,000 in reduced income for the average household.
Critics dispute the methodology of that study, by the National Economic Research Associates. They note that it was conducted for the American Council for Capital Formation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — both vocal opponents of climate regulations