Tag: climategate

Political Theatre – Solve Energy Crisis by Eliminating Fossil Fuels

Over 50 nations are gathering in Colombia to map out a future without oil, gas, and coal, all while the world is in the middle of an energy crisis driven by war, supply disruptions, and rising demand that cannot even be met today. The same governments pretending they can eliminate fossil fuels are quietly scrambling behind the curtain to secure more of them just to keep the lights on.

This is what happens when policy is driven by ideology instead of reality. I have warned repeatedly that there is no viable alternative capable of replacing fossil fuels at scale. This is not an opinion. It is a simple matter of physics and infrastructure. Wind and solar cannot provide baseload power. They are intermittent, unreliable, and require storage systems that do not exist at the level needed to sustain a modern industrial economy. Yet politicians stand up and pretend we can simply flip a switch and transition the entire world economy to renewables as if energy were some optional luxury.

What makes this entire agenda even more dangerous is that they are no longer speaking in vague terms, they are openly stating the objective. Ursula von der Leyen declared that “the global fossil fuel crisis must be a game-changer… let’s earn the clean ticket to heaven,” which is not economic policy, it is ideological rhetoric detached from reality. John Kerry has pushed that leaders must accelerate the “transition away from fossil fuels” or face catastrophe, while Ed Miliband continues to insist Net Zero is essential to eliminate dependence on traditional energy altogether. Then you have Ro Khanna advocating ending fossil fuel subsidies and halting new permits, which in practical terms means cutting supply before any viable replacement exists.

Yet even within their own ranks the cracks are showing. Tony Blair bluntly admitted that any strategy centered on phasing out fossil fuels in the near term is “doomed to fail.” They are publicly advancing an agenda that even insiders know cannot function in the real world.

What they refuse to admit is that every single modern economy depends on fossil fuels at its core. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, heating, electricity, all of it. You cannot remove that foundation without collapsing the structure built on top of it. Even now, as they hold conferences and make declarations, countries are reverting to coal because when crisis strikes, theory disappears and survival takes over. That is the reality they will never say out loud.

Keep reading

“You Don’t Have the Right to Say Climate Change is a Hoax!”- Purple-Haired Democrat LOSES IT as Lee Zeldin Schools Her on Two Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Congress’s purple-haired congresswoman had a near-complete meltdown after EPA administrator Lee Zeldin completely embarrassed her during an an exchange on ‘climate change’ and the law.

On Monday, Zeldin testified before the House Appropriations Committee regarding President Trump’s 2027 budget request. As The Washington Examiner notes, the proposed budget would cut the agency’s budget in half if approved by Congress.

During the hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) angrily attacked Zeldin for “appeasing polluters” and ignoring Americans under “the false flag of economic growth.”

Zeldin responded by explaining that he’s following the law, pointing out that it says nothing about fighting climate change.

Then, he asked DeLauro if she was familiar with the Loper Bright Supreme Court case.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is a landmark Supreme Court case in 2024 which overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies.

The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has long been a source of contention. It granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, effectively allowing unelected bureaucrats to make laws through their regulatory actions.

However, by a 6-3 majority, SCOTUS declared that such power is unconstitutional and goes against the principles of democratic governance.

DeLauro had no clue what Zeldin was talking about and went berserk:

“You do not, excuse, you don’t have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it’s a hoax!” she yelled at the EPA Administrator.

The exchange got even worse for DeLauro when Zeldin exposed her for not knowing about another landmark Supreme Court decision: West Virginia Vs. EPA.

In this 2022 case, The Court determined by a 6-3 margin that Congress did not authorize the EPA to compel existing power plants to combat climate change using the Clean Air Act, thereby curbing the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from them.

All DeLauro could do was yell at Zeldin and finally snapped completely by saying, “I don’t have to listen to this BS!”

Keep reading

Republicans Open New Front In Growing Battle Against “Climate Lawfare”

Republicans in Congress are taking action to shield U.S. energy producers from “Climate lawfare,” the relentless barrage of frivolous lawsuits orchestrated by radical environmental activists.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced S.4340, a bill that would bar frivolous lawsuits from green activist groups seeking damages, injunctions, or other relief for harms allegedly caused by the end use of energy products. Senators Ted Budd (R- NC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Mike Lee (R-UT) are cosponsoring the legislation. The House companion bill, H.R. 8330, was introduced yesterday by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY). The bill would also void any energy penalty law and preempts any states’ attempts to regulate interstate and global emissions.

“Radical environmental groups have waged a coordinated campaign to weaponize our judicial system against American energy producers, including many in Texas,” Cruz said in a statement. “They’re using meritless lawsuits to bankrupt our energy industry, kill good paying jobs, and drive up the cost of electricity and gasoline for hardworking families. I am proud to lead this bill to stop that abuse to protect American jobs, lower energy costs, and defend American energy dominance.”

“Energy security is national security, and we will not self-sabotage our critical industries with a cascade of costly lawsuits and extreme penalties that jeopardize American drilling. America’s energy producers should be protected from the dangerous legal precedent that would be set by the retroactive punishment of lawful activity,” Hageman said.

The bill has already won applause by energy groups aligned with President Donald Trump’s pro-growth agenda.

“Green left activists have always gone to extraordinary lengths to impose their anti-energy agenda on Americans. Filing sweeping lawsuits against oil and gas companies in an attempt to force policy outcomes they have failed to achieve in the legislative and administrative arenas is some of their most egregious work yet,” American Energy Alliance president Tom Pyle said. “This kind of politically motivated litigation threatens not only energy stability, security, and affordability but also the integrity of our legal system.”

Keep reading

Obama-Appointed Judge Denise J. Casper Blocks Trump Administration’s Efforts to Stop ‘Green New Scam’

A federal judge in Boston issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of several federal policies affecting wind and solar energy development, siding with industry groups that argued the measures unlawfully delayed projects across the country.

Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration could not enforce a series of permitting requirements and related policies that renewable energy advocates said had stalled or canceled projects nationwide. Casper concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claims that agencies including the Department of the Interior adopted unlawful procedures that created bottlenecks in the approval process.

The ruling applies to members of nine advocacy organizations and trade groups, including RENEW Northeast and the Alliance for Clean Energy New York. Those groups had challenged a policy requiring multiple levels of approval from senior political appointees for nearly every step in the permitting process for wind and solar projects. The judge found that the administration had not adequately justified the additional review structure.

The decision represents one of several recent judicial setbacks for President Donald Trump’s administration as it seeks to reshape federal energy policy. The administration has emphasized expanding fossil fuel production, promoting oil, coal, and natural gas output while reducing support for renewable energy sources. On Monday, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act and signed memorandums aimed at increasing domestic energy production, citing national defense concerns.

According to court filings, the challenged Department of the Interior memorandum implemented directives aimed at eliminating what the administration called “preferences” for “expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar.” The policy required nearly every step in the permitting process for wind and solar projects to receive approval from three senior political appointees, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The judge also blocked the Department’s “adoption of an interpretation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that ​imposes stricter standards for offshore wind projects,” Reuters reported. Plaintiffs argued the policy created a bottleneck that ground permitting to a halt and was adopted without explanation for why it was needed, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Casper agreed with those arguments, stating that the directives cited by the administration did not sufficiently justify the added review process or the stricter standards applied to renewable energy projects. Her order blocks enforcement of those policies while the case proceeds.

Keep reading

Wes Moore’s ‘Climate Study’ Bankrolled by Left-Wing Rockefeller Fund As Left Looks To Force Oil Companies To Pay Damages for Climate Change

Democratic Maryland governor Wes Moore announced late last year he would commission a climate “study” aimed at assessing “the undue burden Marylanders are paying for extreme weather events” so that fossil fuel companies can be coerced into paying some sort of climate reparations. Moore didn’t mention it, but the left-wing, climate-obsessed Rockefeller Family Fund chipped in $30,000 for the study, raising questions about the study’s impartiality, the Free Beacon‘s Thomas Catenacci reports. We aren’t holding our breath for the results.

The RFF—established in 1967 by the liberal great-grandchildren of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller—says oil companies (the source of their generational wealth) “advance a business model that accelerates the climate crisis” and that the Maryland study is intended to make those companies pay up. The RFF said in a December press release that the study would “lay the groundwork for a Maryland climate superfund bill, which would require fossil fuel companies to pay for a portion of the state’s climate adaptation costs identified through the study”—which is a weird thing to say before the study is actually conducted and the findings presumably unknown—but did not disclose its role in funding the research.

Blue states like New York and Vermont have already passed “climate superfund” laws, which stipulate that oil companies helped cause extreme weather events like floods and wildfires and have to pay damages to compensate for them. Both states are facing lawsuits from the Trump administration arguing that the laws illegally usurp federal emissions regulations.

The move comes as the RFF—which sits on more than $200 million in total assets, according to its latest tax filing—also supports lawsuits seeking to compel oil companies to pay damages by holding them responsible for climate change. “Such suits have largely been unsuccessful, including in Maryland, where the state’s Supreme Court recently dismissed three lawsuits from Democratic-led jurisdictions that accused the likes of BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron of causing costly weather events,” Catenacci writes. “The RFF-backed study, then, could be the first step toward securing payouts from oil companies through the legislative process rather than the judicial one.”

Keep reading

Joe Rogan Destroys Bernie’s Climate Change Fairy Tale with One Simple Graph

Sen. Bernie Sanders and podcast host Joe Rogan discussed climate change, energy policy, and the role of financial interests during a recent exchange, presenting differing views on how the issue should be understood and addressed.

Sanders emphasized the urgency of confronting climate change, citing temperature trends and the potential for economic changes tied to energy policy.

He said the issue should be addressed as part of broader national priorities.

“You got to deal with this climate change issue. And I know that, you know, there are some people think climate change is a hoax. It ain’t a hoax. I think the last 10 years have been the warmest on record, and we can’t create millions of good paying jobs transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency to solar to wind and other sustainable energies.”

Sanders framed the discussion around what he described as the need to move toward alternative energy sources while also focusing on job creation tied to those industries.

Rogan responded by describing climate change as a complex issue and raised questions about long-term climate data. He referenced a Washington Post article examining climate patterns over an extended period.

“I think the climate change issue is very complicated. And I think Did you see the Washington Post piece that they wrote where they did this long term view? First of all, the reality is that the Earth’s temperature has never been static, right? We both agree on that. It’s always been up and down. There’s been ice ages and heat waves. And then the Washington Post looked at it. What was the time period that they looked at that? Essentially, they found that we’re in a cooling period that the earth over the past X amount of years. And this was like a very inconvenient discovery, but they had to report the data, and kudos to them for doing that.”

Rogan continued by referring to scientific efforts to track long-term climate patterns.

Keep reading

NY’s ‘green elephant’ climate projects are collapsing under the weight of . . . math

Nearly two dozen New York clean energy projects are likely to get scrapped because the financial math doesn’t add up — though the state powers that be don’t want to admit that it never did.

Officially, the New York State Energy Research Development Authority, aka NYSERDA, is simply refusing to renegotiate state contracts to build various wind and solar plants, likely leading its counterparties to pull out.

These companies want more cash because the projects’ costs have soared since the deals were inked — mainly because NYSERDA winked at unlikely early estimates with an expectation that it would OK more realistic numbers later on.

In at least one earlier round, it simply rebid the contracts to reflect true costs, but that game is up now that those costs are becoming undeniable, and consumers are already screaming at the electric rate hikes needed to cover the bills.

It’s all part of the con that is New York’s 2019 Climate Act, a scam that set insane goals for decarbonizing the state’s electricity grid and outlined imaginary steps to paint the transition as practical. 

Green ideologues always figure deception is the best way to get governments started on such “reforms,” hoping they can then hector the politicians into keeping the scam going by concealing how exorbitant the costs really are.

Then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo jumped on board as he eyed a presidential run; his successor, Kathy Hochul, declined to call out the lunacy until now, when she’s running for re-election as the economic pain starts to hit.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Dems Advance Bill To Limit How Far You Can Drive In Your Own Car

Massachusetts lawmakers are barreling ahead with a bill that would force the state to slash the total miles residents drive, all under the banner of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposal, Senate Bill S.2246, doesn’t slap a hard cap on your daily commute… yet – but it orders the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to set binding goals for reducing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It also creates a new government council tasked with pushing people onto public transit whether they like it or not.

A local Boston report highlights the move:

“The bill proposed in Massachusetts would limit how far you can drive in your own car. So lawmakers say it would help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Now, while no specific mileage limit was listed, the bill would require MassDOT to set goals to reduce the number of statewide driving miles. It would also establish a new council to find ways to make public transportation more accessible for residents. Now, critics say A cap on personal vehicle miles would directly impact those in rural parts of the state.”

The committee gave it a favorable 4-1 vote and shipped it to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, keeping the radical plan alive on Beacon Hill.

This isn’t some fringe idea cooked up in isolation. It’s part of a broader push to ration mobility under the twin excuses of “climate” and “equity.” Similar thinking powers the 15-minute city concept – the urban planning fad sold as “convenience” but designed to make driving anywhere outside your little neighborhood a bureaucratic nightmare.

Need to visit family across town or haul supplies for a business? Too bad. The goal is fewer cars, fewer miles, and more dependence on government-run transit that’s already unreliable and crime-ridden in blue cities.

Keep reading

Climate Organization Behind Anti-ICE Protests Is Leading May 1 School Walkout Plan, Parent Group Reports

One of the main organizations behind the recent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations is encouraging children to walk out of class en masse next month to help promote its agenda, which includes achieving what it said are “Eco-socialism, [a] multi-racial democracy, and Green New Deal legislation,” according to a April 8 report by representatives of parent group Defending Education.

The Sunrise Movement, during its March 17 online membership meeting, called on schools to “train up” employees and students to disrupt the federal government ahead of planned May 1 “May Day” protests as part of an ongoing “political revolution” to “structurally change the foundations of this country,” according to slides Defending Education, a nonprofit opposing indoctrination in classrooms, obtained from a tipster who attended the meeting.

The Sunrise Movement, according to the slides and its website, describes itself as an anti-President Donald Trump “climate revolution” group that advocates socialism, supports a rainbow coalition of the multi-racial working class, and calls for an end to the “billionaire” two-party political system.

In addition to mass school walkouts, the organization is also calling for more disruptions to Hilton hotels, which have housed ICE officers, according to the slides. Past actions included calling for boycotts of the hotel chain and engaging in “wide awake” events where protestors gathered outside of Hilton-branded hotels and made as much noise as possible to prevent ICE officers—and everyone else staying there—from sleeping.

Another slide illustrates a domino effect that starts with the ideological conversion of students and young people and spreads to teachers, customer service workers, city service workers, factory service workers, shipping and transportation workers, and ultimately “military and police defections.”

“They have zero reservations about using children to advance their political ideology,” Rhyen Staley, Defending Education research director, told The Epoch Times. “These kids are being used for their propaganda.”

Keep reading

The EU’s Failed Green Deal Is a Warning to Us All

Ambition cannot replace realism.

In 2020, the European Union launched its Green Deal. Six years later, investments in hydrogen-based projects have collapsed, and electricity prices are twice as high as in the US and China. Europe is losing its competitive edge. In our research for the Institute of Economic Affairs, we identify eight reasons why the EU Green Deal is not working. In doing so, we draw policy lessons for the United Kingdom.

In December 2019, the European Commission presented the Green Deal as a historic project. Europe would become the world’s first climate-neutral continent while strengthening its industrial base. Six years later, the picture is considerably bleaker. Electricity prices for industrial customers are about twice as high as in the US and China, several large-scale hydrogen projects have been postponed or cancelled, and the EU’s global competitiveness continues to weaken.

This development is not surprising. The green deal marks a clear break with traditional environmental policy, which has historically been based on emissions pricing, technology neutrality and incremental improvements. Instead, the EU has embraced a mission-oriented industrial policy in which the policy identifies winning technologies, sets detailed sectoral targets and channels large resources to selected projects and companies.

In a new collective volume—“The Green Entrepreneurial State? Exploring the Pitfalls of Green Deals”—we, together with 17 other researchers, analyse the green agenda from both a theoretical and empirical perspective. The conclusion is clear: green industrial policy suffers from structural problems; therefore, it rarely works as intended in practice.

First, the policy attempts to solve complex, systemic challenges with tools that require overview, control and predictability. But climate and energy systems are characterised by uncertainty, rapid technological development and global dependencies that cannot be controlled from above through roadmaps drawn by politicians. Germany’s Energiewende is a cautionary example: A politically motivated nuclear phase-out has contributed to high electricity prices, continued fossil fuel dependence and weakened industrial competitiveness.

Second, the green agenda ignores the fact that politicians and authorities are not neutral social planners but are influenced by self-interest, emotional narratives and special interests. The result is rent seeking, clientelism and support for projects that are politically attractive rather than socio-economically valuable. Europe’s investments in hydrogen, steel and battery production are stark illustrations of this problem.

Third, competition is distorted. When certain technologies—such as hydrogen, wind power or specific industrial projects—receive extensive support, the market’s decentralised selection process is undermined. Technologies that are not socio-economically viable are kept alive, while alternative solutions are squeezed out. This is exacerbated by the fact that system costs, grid expansion and storage requirements are often ignored in decisions.

Fourth, government risk-sharing increases moral hazard. When taxpayers bear a large part of the downside, the incentives to take excessive risks become stronger. Experience from several green mega-projects shows that technological optimism is often combined with a lack of cost control.

Finally, behavioural economic mechanisms play a central role. Climate policy has typically been couched in alarmist terms where threats are exaggerated and opportunity costs downplayed. In such a “loss framing,” even very risky and expensive projects become politically rational, despite the uncertainty of their benefits.

Keep reading