Tag: climategate

New Carbon Capture Legislation, Same Old Grift

A bi-partisan Congressional duo is pushing for a massive federal land grab through new carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation in the U.S. House.

Utah Republican Blake Moore joins forces with California Democrat Jim Costa to sell out private property owners nationwide with the BECCS Advancement Commission Act of 2025.

BECCS stands for “Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage,” and the legislation builds on Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act, adding additional funding for CCS to the billions included in that massive financial debacle.

H.R. 5597 also proposes adding another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. If passed, it will establish a BECCS Advancement Commission in the Department of Agriculture, a nine- or 10-member board comprised of career politicians, lobbyists, and subsidy recipients. (So much for DOGE.)

Assorted Accolades

To date, no other Congressmen have added their names as cosponsors. But the bill has earned plenty of accolades from those who stand to reap billions in federal largess. Some of them include:

  1. Arbor Energy, a carbon capture tech company founded in 2022, cozy with Microsoft, and which has already received $7 million in federal funding.
  2. Elimini, an even more recent startup launched in late 2024 and specializing in BECCS technology, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Kingdom’s renewable energy giant Drax Group. In other words, it’s a conduit for American tax dollars to a foreign-owned company.
  3. The Carbon Business Council (CBC) is a non-profit association whose members hail from CCS circles. It is involved in Elon Musk’s XPRIZE which, at $100 million, is touted as the “largest incentive prize in history,” and aims to fund development of carbon dioxide removal technology. CBC’s executive director, Ben Rubin, is a frequent speaker at United Nations climate conferences and at the World Economic Forum.

“BECCS is a novel technology uniquely positioned to promote wildfire mitigation, bolster economic development in rural America, and deliver much-needed baseload power as energy demand for data centers and artificial intelligence continues to grow,” stumped Moore as he introduced the bill. “This legislation will help us harness new technology to reduce wildfire risks, create good-paying jobs and keep rural economies like ours growing,” Costa predictably parroted.

Keep reading

The Net Zero, extreme weather, climate science consensus is breaking apart as COP30 nears

The 30th Conference of the Parties on climate change (“COP30”) will promote its climate, energy and economic fantasies and demands from 10 to 21 November in Belém, Brazil. Some 70,000 grifter scientists, activists, politicians and journalists (plus observers) will attend.

Despite pre-summit hype and proclamations of hope, the summiteers are nervous.

Increasing evidence demonstrates that claims of a planetary crisis are rooted in meaningless computer models and fearmongering, not in actual science, data or fact.

More voters worldwide are rejecting and rebelling against Net Zero/anti-fossil fuel policies that have raised energy costs, destroyed jobs and industries, and crushed hopes and living standards.

Even the poorest US state (Mississippi) now boasts a higher GDP per capita than climate-obsessed Britain, where the average household price of electricity is US$0.35 per kilowatt hour (likely to rise to $0.55/kWh by 2027) compared to a 17.5¢ US average and 13.5¢ in Mississippi.

UK industries now pay the world’s highest electricity prices – 27% more than equally obsessed Germany – and conservative or alternative political parties in both countries are surging in popularity against the entrenched interests that imposed these destructive, job-killing, unsustainable policies.

The United States economy is outpacing Europe’s largely because the Trump Administration has re-embraced abundant, reliable, affordable fuels, petrochemicals and electricity, while Britain, Germany and most of Europe refuse to drill or frack for oil and gas or retreat from their unattainable climate pledges.

Trump agencies have slashed subsidies, favouritism and environmental fast-tracks for wind and solar projects – and clawed back billions of dollars that the Biden Administration had given to “green energy” and “climate justice” groups during its last weeks in office.

President Trump again withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, may not let US representatives participate in COP30 and is unlikely to allow US taxpayer money to flow into UN slush funds for climate “reparations,” “resilience” or “losses and damages.”

Mr. Trump also excoriated Net Zero policies before the UN General Assembly, calling them a “green scam” concocted by “stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success.” UN member states chastened by the Russia-Ukraine war, growing dependence on Russian gas and Chinese minerals and wind turbines, and their own economic demise were hard-pressed to disagree. Developing countries also paid attention.

Meanwhile, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance – beloved by eco-imperialists for opposing and preventing financing for fossil fuel projects in Africa and around the world – has ceased all operations, following a mass exodus by its US, Canadian, British and Swiss bank members.

“The 2.1 billion humans who suffer in abject energy poverty” and families of “the 16.5 million loved ones” who died from “indoor air pollution during the 5-1/2 years the Alliance was working” can now breathe sighs of relief, said energy realist and human rights campaigner Ryan Zorn.

The EU Parliament agreed to roll back multiple environmentalist mandates and regulations on businesses, in what Politico calls an “emerging rightward rupture that is reshaping European policymaking.”

Criticism of junk climate and energy science in the UN, US and other government and academic institutions has become frequent and furious since President Trump was re-elected in November 2024, and the shackles of government, media, social media and search-engine censorship have been loosened.

The world is rapidly learning about wind and solar power shortcomings; their decimation of raptors and other wildlife; the massive mining and pollution involved in manufacturing these “clean, green” energy systems; the millions of acres of farm, habitat and scenic lands impacted by them; the trillion-dollar costs of battery and gas backup systems for windless and sunless periods; and the economic devastation that climate-centric policies are inflicting worldwide.

Developed and developing nations alike are beginning to realise they have been asked to destroy the world with wind-solar-battery systems that can never meet growing electricity demands – to save it from climate crises that exist only in computer models and fevered imaginations.

The Net Zero, extreme weather, climate science consensus is breaking apart as COP30 nears. 

Keep reading

STOP THE LUNACY: EU Tries To Push Back Against US Demands That They Scrap Their ‘Green’ Climate-Hoax Legislation

Brussels won’t let go of its pet delusions.

Besides implementing common-sense policies in his US administration, Donald J. Trump is also flexing his geopolitical muscles to prod European allies away from the many Globalist – and suicidal – policies emanating from Brussels.

This realignment of priorities impacts policies in areas such as border protection and immigration, defense, free speech, racial tensions, gender confusion, and – of course – the church of climate change and their ‘Net-zero’ delusions that are killing European economies.

This US pressure is exerted both overtly and behind closed doors.

So, yesterday (11), it emerged that the European Commission is ‘defending its autonomous power to adopt laws’ in response to US pressure to roll back the EU’s insane environmental legislation.

Euronews reported:

“The European Commission on Thursday rejected the US’ demands regarding its environmental regulations, which Washington considers too restrictive for its companies.

‘Our laws, our European regulatory authority, is not up for discussion’, Commission deputy spokesperson Olof Gill said, making it clear the EU would not roll back on its power to adopt legislation.”

Keep reading

Foreign Billionaire Pours Millions Into U.S. Politics to Push Radical Green Agenda

For more than a decade, British billionaire hedge-fund manager Christopher Hohn has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into American politics. 

Federal law strictly prohibits foreign nationals from directly or indirectly influencing U.S. elections, yet Hohn has become one of the most aggressive violators of that rule.

Through his London-based nonprofit, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), Hohn poured more than $553 million into U.S. organizations between 2014 and 2023. 

These dollars didn’t go toward charity; instead, they went toward advancing radical left-wing policy campaigns: climate protests, anti-fossil-fuel litigation, and efforts to ban natural gas stoves. 

Much of this money flowed through the Arabella Advisors dark-money network, which bankrolls progressive activism nationwide.

CIFF’s ties raise even deeper concerns. The group has close connections to Communist China. 

Its CEO sits on the International Green Development Coalition, a program tied to China’s Belt and Road initiative. 

The coalition’s work is overseen by top officials in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

In fact, Hohn’s foundation has even honored CCP figures with “Friendship Awards,” further signaling its alignment with Beijing’s agenda.

While Democrats in Washington turn a blind eye, a foreign billionaire with ties to the CCP has been allowed to bankroll groups that shape America’s energy policy. 

By funding climate litigation and pressure campaigns, Hohn’s foundation has worked to dismantle U.S. energy independence, leaving America weaker and more reliant on foreign adversaries.

Democrats rail against supposed “foreign interference” in U.S. elections, but they have no problem cashing checks from foreign billionaires who bankroll their policy goals. 

From California to Washington, D.C., progressive nonprofits fueled by CIFF money have radicalized debates on climate and social justice, all while operating under the radar with little oversight or regulation.

Keep reading

Democrats, Media Rushed To Blame Deadly California Fire on Climate Change. It Was Actually Arson.

Democrats and media outlets were quick to blame climate change and oil companies for the devastating Palisades Fire that ravaged Los Angeles earlier this year. But that narrative crumbled on Wednesday when federal law enforcement officials charged a man for deliberately starting the fire.

Federal prosecutors in California charged Jonathan Rinderknecht with one count of destruction of property by means of fire, a charge that carries a maximum time of 20 years in federal prison. “While we cannot bring back what victims lost, we hope this criminal case brings some measure of justice to those affected by this horrific tragedy,” said acting U.S. attorney Bill Essayli.

The charge—which Essayli said was informed by witness statements, video surveillance, cell phone data, and an analysis of fire dynamics conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—cuts against the narrative prominent Democratic lawmakers and media outlets pushed following the tragic event.

“If you don’t believe in science, believe your own damn eyes,” Gov. Gavin Newsom (D., Calif.) wrote in a post with photographs of the Los Angeles fire. The post came in response to news that President Donald Trump would withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accords in January.

After prosecutors announced the charge against Rinderknecht on Wednesday, Newsom wrote it “marks an important step toward uncovering how the horrific Palisades Fire began.”

Keep reading

Beware How The Climate Crusade ‘Partners’ With The Media And ‘Educates’ The Courts

Do you ever wonder why mainstream news stories seem so one-sided in their “climate change” coverage, promoting the most radical theories while ridiculing so-called “climate deniers?” Similarly, have you ever pondered how judges who are not scientists or climate experts render opinions favorable to the climate cult while citing scientific “facts” and “evidence” to bolster their verdicts?

For decades, CBS News – the storied broadcast home of icons like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite – was long regarded as the gold standard for television journalism. The “Tiffany Network’s” reporting might sometimes be controversial, but it was always considered deeply researched and proudly independent. CBS News prided itself on its unassailable integrity – “And that’s the way it is,” Cronkite assured us every evening when he signed off.

When it comes to reporting on climate news, those days are gone. For some climate-related stories, CBS News has of late been partnering with Climate Central, a nonprofit that bills itself as “policy-neutral” and “independent,” but acknowledges on its on website that it “uses science, big data, and technology to generate thousands of local storylines and compelling visuals that make climate change personal and show what can be done about it. We address climate science, sea level rise, extreme weather, energy, and related topics.”

In early September Fox News reported, “Last month, CBS News published a story about melting glaciers that also aired on ‘Sunday Morning.’ Ben Tracy was the correspondent on the segment, with his byline at the top of the article. A disclaimer at the bottom read, ‘Story produced by Chris Spinder, in partnership with Climate Central. Editor: Chris Jolly.’” Fox News noted that another CBS News article in July, “also tied to an on-air segment with Tracy, included the disclaimer that the story was ‘produced in partnership with Climate Central.’”

In fact, Tracy and Spinder “work for Climate Central. Only Jolly is a current CBS News staffer, according to his LinkedIn page.” So much for fair, balanced and independent journalism.

On its website, Climate Central boasts of its influence on news organizations, noting that through its “Partnership Journalism” program, it “contributes data, science and data reporting, editing and guidance to joint features coverage informed by new climate data.” The site provides links to page after page of “news” stories on which it has “partnered,” ranging from alternative energy outlets to traditional news agencies.

Keep reading

Conspiracy theorists, you were right: The climate change agenda is the depopulation agenda, even though no one knows what the global population is

On Tuesday, The Guardian published an article that admits the climate agenda is the depopulation agenda.

What is also notable is the article boldly claims the global human population is increasing by 200,000 people a day.  The world’s population is a guesstimate, so how can they know it is increasing by that number?  The truth is they don’t.

It simply isn’t possible to be sure exactly how many people there are on the Earth at any one time.  If it is uncertain how many people there are, it is even less certain by how many people the population is increasing, if indeed it is increasing.

The Guardian was publicising a report by a group of “experts” who had written a declaration of a ‘Warning of a Climate Emergency’ in 2020 for “scientists” worldwide to sign.  Their recent report was designed to solicit additional signatories.

How did The Guardian’s journalist miss that the “expert’s” report was merely activism? The article was written by a 20-year environmental reporting veteran who won this year’s press award for his “agenda-setting journalism on the climate crisis.”  He didn’t overlook the activism; he was helping to set the agenda.

Keep reading

Ashley Moody, Rick Scott urge Donald Trump administration to block proposed international shipping tax

The International Maritime Organization is considering a tax to offset costs of ending carbon emissions from ships.

U.S. Sens. Ashley Moody and Rick Scott drafted a letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Donald Trump administration to continue efforts to block a proposal by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to implement global carbon pricing tax.

The IMO next month will consider adopting pricing increase charges for shipping for carbon emissions by the vessels. The proposal is designed to guide shipping companies toward zero emissions by 2050, if adopted.

“The proposal, which the IMO is taking up next month, would place an unfair burden on American citizens and businesses,” a news release from Moody’s Office said.

The memorandum sent by Moody and Scott to top Trump administration officials urges continued opposition to the IMO proposal.

“The current proposal presents a direct threat to American interests. The proposed framework would impose a binding, escalating global carbon tax on maritime shipping through a system of increasingly strict emissions tiers and rising levies,” the Moody-Scott letter stated.

The original proposal was drafted in April and the intent is to lower emissions of greenhouse gas by the global shipping industry in general. The taxes on shipping companies would, theoretically, use the revenue to support and augment energy transition to carbon-gas-free ships.

But the letter from the two Senators argues the proposed program would limit American autonomy.

“Despite this enormous financial impact, the United States has virtually no influence over the policy and will receive none of the tax revenue in return. This is taxation without representation and a direct threat to the United States’ economic security,” the letter stated.

Moody and Scott reminded administration officials that the U.S. has substantial sway in the shipping industry. Global ports based in Florida include hubs in South Florida, Tampa, The Panhandle, Jacksonville and Cape Canaveral among other notable nautical centers.

That kind of impact can be used to influence the IMO, they argued.

“The senators urged the administration to immediately apply trade leverage to block the IMO framework and note this as a historic opportunity to restore our nation’s influence in global maritime policy and rapidly reassert American maritime dominance,” Moody’s news release said.

Keep reading

House OKs GOP bill to deprioritize some renewable projects

The House on Thursday approved a Republican bill that seeks to deprioritize some renewable energy from getting onto the electric grid amid broader GOP attacks on green energy.

The legislation, which passed 216-206, allows “dispatchable” energy to be prioritized amid the long line of projects that seek to get plugged into the nation’s electric grid.

“Dispatchable” energy can refer to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It may also refer to some renewable energy projects if they come with battery storage that allows solar or wind power to be harnessed and deployed at a later date.

But renewable energy projects that lack battery storage could be bypassed under the legislation and held up for even longer than the already years-long wait to get through grid interconnection queues.

Sponsor Rep. Troy Balderson (R-Ohio) said in a press release when the bill was introduced that it would “protect our grid’s reliability and provide the power needed to meet America’s growing demand.”

However, Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.) said in a markup earlier this year that the bill would allow “fossil fuel projects to cut the line.”

“We shouldn’t be prioritizing ready-to-go projects just because they are clean energy,” he said. 

The bill is unlikely to pass in the Senate, where it would need at least seven Democrats to support it. 

Keep reading

Environmental Groups Are Suing To Silence Scientists Who Wrote a Report Questioning Climate Change Alarmism

In July, the Energy Department released a report challenging many of the mainstream narratives surrounding climate change. The report, which was authored by the Climate Working Group (CWG)—a team of five climate scientists and economists—was drafted to “encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy,” according to Energy Secretary Chris Wright. 

“To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report,” the energy secretary wrote in the report’s foreword. The publication has indeed opened up debate, garnering nearly 60,000 comments in the Federal Register. But it has also introduced a series of legal challenges against the agency and the CWG. 

On Thursday, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by two environmental groups—the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists—against the Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the CWG. 

The lawsuit argues that when forming the CWG, Wright and the Energy Department violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires federal advisory groups to provide meeting notices and meeting notes to the public, create an approved charter of the group’s mission, and “have a balanced membership in terms of ‘the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee,'” according to the the Congressional Research Service. 

Much of the lawsuit focuses on the viewpoint balance of the CWG, with the plaintiffs arguing that “all five authors are well known for holding ‘contrarian views on climate science that are out of step with the mainstream'” and “none of the members represents the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities…have unequivocally caused global warming.” To remedy the lawsuit, the environmental groups are demanding that the working group be disbanded, the report be vacated, and CWG members be prohibited from advising federal agencies until the defendants “comply with all requirements for the group to operate legally as an advisory committee.”

The Energy Department has refuted claims that it violated the FACA, arguing that the CWG is not an advisory group under the law because it was created to “exchange facts or information” with the Energy Department, not to “make recommendations on an identified governmental policy for which specified advice was being sought.” Additionally, the CWG was disbanded on September 3, in a letter sent from Wright to the group’s members, rendering “most of Plaintiffs’ claims…moot due to the CWG’s dissolution.” Even with the CWG officially being shut down, its members will continue to collaborate (outside of the federal government’s scope) and update the report, according to Bloomberg.

Keep reading