Here Are Three Unanswered Questions About Biden EPA’s Massive Green ‘Slush Fund’ thumbnail

Here Are Three Unanswered Questions About Biden EPA’s Massive Green ‘Slush Fund’

By The Daily Caller

As Republican lawmakers prepare to grill a senior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official about one of President Joe Biden’s massive green grantmaking programs, several questions about the program’s structure and potential beneficiaries remain unanswered.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sitting on a $27 billion fund known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a program established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s landmark climate bill. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding an oversight hearing on the program featuring Senior Advisor to the EPA Administrator Zealan Hoover on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with Republican lawmakers describing the program as possibly spawning “the next big government boondoggle.”

The GGRF intends “to mobilize financing and private capital to address the climate crisis” using several subprograms, according to the EPA. The program’s expeditious timeline, as well as the connections that several of those groups share to the administration and the broader Democratic party apparatus, have attracted the scrutiny of government watchdog groups and elected Republicans alike in recent months.

House Passes EPA Spending Bill That Defunds Several Biden Climate Initiatives

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 3, 2023

How is the EPA ensuring that political connections do not interfere with selecting grantees?

Up to $14 billion of GGRF cash could go to so-called “green banks,” or financial institutions that provide financing specifically for climate-related investments, according to the EPA. Three of the five “green bank” consortiums reportedly on the shortlist to potentially receive multi-billion dollar payouts from the GGRF have considerable ties to the Biden administration or the wider Democratic Party and its allies. The coalitions are variously composed of environmental groups, nonprofits and smaller “green banks” that would distribute the awarded funds to projects they deem worthy of the material support.

“Many prospective recipients and sub-recipients are chock full of political operatives as well as individuals and organizations with ties to the current administration and its Democratic predecessors,” Michael Chamberlain, the executive director of Protect the Public’s Trust, a watchdog organization that has closely monitored the GGRF, told the DCNF. “This raises serious questions about the likelihood of the GGRF being used to advance partisan interests or reward former political appointees and those who helped elect the President or create the program.”

For example, the board of directors for the Coalition for Green Capital — one of the groups reportedly in contention for a major payday — includes David Hayes, a senior fellow for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and formerly a climate adviser for Biden; Cecilia Martinez, who is now the Bezos Earth Fund’s chief of environmental and climate justice after a stint in the Biden White House Council on Environmental Quality; and Julie Greene Collier, chief of staff for the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

The committee could choose to dig into these connections and call on Hoover to provide a detailed description of internal EPA safeguards to ensure a competitive grantmaking process on Tuesday, as well as whether the agency is concerned about potential appearances of ethical impropriety or political patronage with its award decisions.

Why did the agency meet with major green groups about the program in November 2022?

The EPA met with several organizations connected to officials in the agency and the wider administration behind closed doors to discuss the fund in November 2022, about 11 months before the application window closed in October 2023. The meeting served as a chance for groups like the NRDC and the Center for American Progress to “provide early feedback” and “ask clarifying questions” about the GGRF process.

“Holding a chummy meeting with special interest organizations with deep connections to political leadership isn’t a good look,” Chamberlain said at the time.

Protect the Public’s Trust described the meeting as “highly irregular” back in September 2023, and Republican lawmakers could test his theory by asking Hoover to explain why this meeting was held, what specific issues were discussed and whether it is standard EPA practice to meet with activist organizations about major programs like the GGRF behind closed doors before the application window has closed.

How is EPA ensuring due diligence while also rushing to get funds out by September 2024?

The agency is endeavoring to shell out the bulk of the GGRF money by September 2024 per the terms of the IRA, but elected Republicans have suggested that this timeline significantly raises the risks of inadequate oversight. Watchdog groups that have previously raised the alarm on the program concur.

“Haste really does make waste, as we should have learned from the government’s COVID response. When federal programs are fast tracked at the expense of appropriate oversight, they’re vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse,” Pete McGinnis, the spokesman for the Functional Government Initiative, told the DCNF. “The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund sure looks like a taxpayer-financed $27 billion slush fund for Biden administration insiders pushing unproven technologies.”

Other similar government programs designed to boost green energy development with taxpayer-funded cash infusions have also shelled out money with a sense of urgency, leading to potential lapses in the due diligence process. the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO), one such program reportedly trying to move funds quickly, agreed to provide one fledgling company a $375 million loan package while it was allegedly defrauding its investors, and another $3 billion package to another company that reportedly exploited elderly customers by having them sign long-term, expensive solar panel installation contracts.

Given the relatively quick timeline and the fact that GGRF grantees may serve as functional grantmakers outside of typical agency controls, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee could press Hoover for detailed plans that demonstrate the agency is prepared to give out the money in a way that appropriately mitigates the inherent risks.

“While we are heartened to see the GGRF on the radar of Congressional overseers, we are equally disturbed about the reasons it has come to their attention. Members of the committee have expressed similar concerns as ours about the tremendous potential for abuse, conflicts, and cronyism inherent in this massive program,” Chamberlain told the DCNF. “The more details that emerge about the $27 billion GGRF, the more disturbed we become of the possibility this could turn out to be a colossal Greendoggle, or worse.”

For its part, the EPA has expressed to the DCNF that it is administering the program by the book.

“All applications submitted to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund competitions are being put through a rigorous evaluation and selection process in line with the high standards of EPA’s Competition Policy, which ensures that the competitive process for EPA funds remains fair, impartial and free of undue influence,” an EPA spokesperson previously told the DCNF.

There are several key questions about the program that remain unanswered, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has a chance to address the underlying risk factors when they convene Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill to hold a hearing examining the program.





Dem Lawmakers Want To Earmark $1,000,000 For Activists To Build ‘Environmental Justice’ Center

Dems’ Energy Permitting Reform Bill Includes Billions For Eco-Activist Groups

California Solar Companies Hit The Skids After Receiving Huge Handouts From Biden, Dems

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

DAVID BLACKMON: The Biden Admin And Its Buddies Are Waging Foolish War Against Abundant Clean Energy thumbnail

DAVID BLACKMON: The Biden Admin And Its Buddies Are Waging Foolish War Against Abundant Clean Energy

By The Daily Caller

On Thursday, the Biden administration announced it was invoking a hold on permitting processes for proposed new export projects for liquefied natural gas (LNG). It was a nakedly partisan act designed to appease the Democrat party’s climate alarmist funder base, one that will create ripple effects across the global economy and energy space. It will also create uncertainty and alarm among consumers of US LNG, especially among European nations who are supposedly America’s allies.

Reacting to the policy decision, Tom Pyle, President of the DC-based Institute for Energy Research, told me that, “With this decision, President Biden is continuing to place his environmental donors over the American people.  A delay of a decision on [permitting] until after the November 5, 2024, U.S. presidential election could spare President Biden from criticism from environmentalists, but it will likely cause havoc to markets and the energy security of our allies who may question the reliability of the United States as a secure energy supplier.”

Fortunately for the United States and its LNG customers, an array of new export facilities already in the construction phase of development will add up to 12 billion cubic feet per day of new export capacity over the coming three years. These projects would be unmolested by this latest authoritarian move by the White House, absent efforts to expand it.

One of the biggest of these is the Rio Grande LNG project being constructed outside Brownsville, Texas near the mouth of the Rio Grande River. Operated by developer NextDecade, Rio Grande LNG will have the capacity to export 11.74 million tonnes of LNG per year once its three trains go into service in the coming years. That equates to enough energy to heat and cool 34 million households, more energy than all the Biden administration’s planned offshore wind projects combined.

Even better, Rio Grande LNG is being designed to produce LNG that will rank among the lowest carbon-intensive production in the world. That’s because NextDecade is simultaneously building out a massive carbon capture and storage project in conjunction with the export facility.

But, even though Rio Grande LNG and other planned facilities under construction appear to be untouched by the Biden delay, no one should think they are moving ahead unopposed. A pair of activist groups, the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) and the Oregon Investment Council (OIC), groups with no real connection to the community, have worked to drum up opposition to the project that is providing hundreds of jobs and ultimately billions of dollars in economic impact for the local area. Ironically, this PESP group is working in opposition to the development despite major investments being made into it by ESG-focused investor groups, potentially including Larry Fink’s BlackRock if a planned acquisition is completed.

Part of the opposition’s advocacy claims to be protecting the interests of the Carrizo Comecrudo Nation with a somewhat specious claim that the project is being sited on sacred lands. But this Carrizo nation is not a federally recognized tribe, likely because a review of its history indicates it is in fact native to Mexico rather than Texas. The claim of sacred lands appears to hold no merit and be purely motivated by politics, no different than the White House delay on permitting announced Thursday.

An email missive from PESP that landed in my email inbox this week also claims that “… the facilities would significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping and natural tourism industries putting communities’ livelihoods at risk.” But the only evidence offered in support of these claims is a “study” authored by a group of leftwing climate alarm groups like the Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club. If the claims had been truly quantified by any credible source, the Biden administration would have no doubt been eager to act on them to advance its Green New Deal-based agenda.

The world needs America’s LNG, and is likely to need more and more of it as time goes on. The White House’s action to delay the already-ridiculously slow permitting process in such an obvious political move is as reprehensible as it is, frankly, stupid.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.



David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.


Greens Claim Their Policies Will Benefit Minorities And The Working Class, But Experts Say They’re Dead Wrong

White House Touts Support Of Confrontational Enviro Group That Harassed Admin Officials, Dems

DAVID BLACKMON: The Legacy Media Is Still Totally Wrong About The Texas Power Grid

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

DISASTER: Biden Regime Kills Enormous Natural Gas Projects in Victory for Left-Wing Extremists thumbnail

DISASTER: Biden Regime Kills Enormous Natural Gas Projects in Victory for Left-Wing Extremists

By The Geller Report

“[Environmentalism]  as a social principle . . . condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.” — Ayn Rand

The illegitimate regime is KILLING us. They are killing the country.

Democrats are pushing for natural gas bans, mandates on electric sources.

The immediate goal is obvious: the destruction of the remnants of capitalism in today’s mixed economy, and the establishment of a global dictatorship. This goal does not have to be inferred—many speeches and books on the subject state explicitly that the ecological crusade is a means to that end.’ Ayn Rand, Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

‘White House halts enormous natural gas projects in victory for environmentalists

‘This isn’t just bad policy, it’s bad politics,’ former FERC chairman

By Thomas Catenacci, Fox News, January 26, 2024:

Dems pushing for natural gas bans, mandates on electric sources

The White House is halting the permitting process for several proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects over their potential impacts on climate change, an unprecedented move environmentalists have demanded in recent months.

In a joint announcement Friday morning, the White House and Department of Energy (DOE) said the pause would occur while federal officials conduct a rigorous environmental review assessing the projects’ carbon emissions, which could take more than a year to complete. Climate activists have loudly taken aim at LNG export projects in recent weeks, arguing they will lead to a large uptick in emissions and worsen global warming.

Keep reading.


Pamela Geller


Corporate Media In Crisis As Outlets Grapple With Biden’s Economy

Jon Stewart’s Latest Move Signals How Desperate Democrats Are Getting Ahead Of The Election

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Victory! SEC Drops ‘Natural Asset Companies’ thumbnail

Victory! SEC Drops ‘Natural Asset Companies’

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Read CFACT’s official Submission to SEC: “Natural asset companies” are a ploy by the anti-development crowd to thwart safe and constructive land use.  The SEC should not sanction non-use over optimal use of resources.

To: Securities and Exchange Commission

From: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Re: Order Instituting Proceedings: “Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change to Amend the NYSE Manual to Adopt Listing Standards for Natural Asset Companies”

File No.: SR-NYSE-2023-09

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is pleased to submit comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on a proposed rule change by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) creating Natural Asset Companies (NACs), which would be traded on the NYSE. The SEC is seeking comments on whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change. CFACT has grave concerns about this proposal and they are explained below.

The SEC was created in the aftermath of the stock market crash of October 24, 1929. Two landmark statutes, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, set the parameters of the SEC. At its inception, the new federal entity had a mission statement that is worth bearing in mind:

“The Securities and Exchange Commission oversees securities exchanges, securities brokers, investment advisors, and mutual funds in an effort to promote fair dealing, the disclosure of important market information, and to prevent fraud.”

Under the proposed rule, the NYSE would add to its Listed Company Manual the listing of common equity securities of National Asset Companies, or NACs. According to the proposed rule, this would be “a corporation The SEC should not sanction non-use over optimal use of resources, whose primary purpose would be to actively manage, maintain, restore (as applicable), and grow the values of natural assets and their production of ecosystem services.” Notably, the proposed rule characterizes “the distinct purpose of a NAC” as “protect[ing] and grow[ing] the natural assets under its management.” The proposed rule also specifically defines the term “Natural Asset Companies (NACs)” as “[c]orporations that hold the rights to the ecological performance of a defined area and have the authority to manage the areas for conservation, restoration, or sustainable management.”

Origins Rooted in Cronyism

NACs, as a concept, owe their existence to Intrinsic Exchange Group Inc. (IEG). According to a September 2021 press release by the Rockefeller Foundation, “IEG was founded in 2017 by entrepreneur and environmentalist Douglas Eger. IEG received critical funding from IDB Lab, Inter-American Development Bank, The Rockefeller Foundation, and Aberdare Ventures and Intrinsic Entertaining Ideas.” It is worth noting that The Rockefeller Foundation alone donated $750,000 to IEG in 2019 and $1 million to IEG in 2021, according to comments on the proposed rule already submitted to the SEC.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s press release indicates that NACs are a joint project of the NYSE and IEG. The release quotes Eger as follows:

“This new asset class on the NYSE will create a virtuous cycle of investment in nature that will help finance sustainable development for communities, companies, and countries[.] … Together, IEG and the NYSE will enable investors to access nature’s store of wealth and transform our industrial our industrial economy into one that is more equitable.” (emphasis added)

The release goes on to quote NYSE’s then-president Stacy Cunningham as follows:

“With the introduction of Natural Asset Companies, the NYSE will provide investors with an innovative mechanism to financially support the sustainability initiatives they deem critical to our future. Our partnership with Intrinsic Exchange Group is another example of the NYSE tapping into our community to drive meaningful progress on ESG [environmental, social, and governance) issues with a solutions-based approach[.]” (emphasis added)

In addition to the open acknowledgement of cozy relationships between the NYSE and other entities supporting the creation of NACs, key terms or phrases like “community,” “communities,” “equitable,” “our future,” “virtuous,” “sustainable,” “sustainability,” “sustainable development,” and transform” are conspicuously left undefined in both the Rockefeller Foundation press release and in the proposed rule. Furthermore, the release admits that “the value created by NACS is not fully captured by traditional economic metrics.” This is another way of saying that NACs will not and cannot make a profit. NACs will invest in “nature” where the only value created is the purported protection of nature.

In other words, NACs would not be investment vehicles into which ordinary Americans can put their money with a reasonable expectation of receiving a good return. Instead, they would be state-sanctioned instruments of environmental policy as favored by narrow, if powerful, elites ensconced in wealthy foundations, the United Nations, and the NYSE, and corporations with well-positioned bureaucrats in federal agencies.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the role NACs would play in serving as a funding mechanism for the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) recent proposed rule, “Conservation and Landscape Health,” which would authorize BLM to grant “conservation leases” on public lands. BLM assures the public that such leases would be “for the purpose of ensuring ecosystem resilience through protecting, managing, or restoring natural environments, cultural or historic resources, and ecological communities, including species and their habitats.” The proposed BLM rule provides that “once the BLM has issued a conservation lease, the BLM shall not authorize any other uses of the leased lands that are inconsistent with the authorized conservation use.” (emphasis added)

This means that once BLM issues a conservation lease, productive economic uses such as grazing, logging, or mining will no longer be allowed unless they are deemed “consistent” with the lease’s environmental purposes.

In short, the NYSE’s rule is an effort to circumvent federal laws governing how public lands are to be managed, not least the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA). FLPMA mandates that BLM manage public lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.” This means that BLM must provide for a “combination of balanced and diverse uses,” of which the “principle or major uses” include, “and are limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production.” Nothing in FLMPA authorizes the granting of “conservation leases,” and the BLM rule’s restrictions on productive economic uses of lands under such a lease put it at odds with congressional intent as clearly laid out in FLPMA.

By violating the clear language of FLPMA, the proposed BLM rule is illegal and is destined to be overturned by the courts. Yet its provision creating “conservation leases” is inextricably linked to the NACs rule currently before the SEC. Such leases will not provide financial returns to the leaseholders. On the contrary, they are specifically designed to lock up lands to prohibit any economic use thereof. So which entities would sink money into the unprofitable leases?

The answer is NACs. Like conservation leases, NACs are not designed to make money. NACs are strictly limited in their ability to conduct “revenue-generating” operations and can only do so if those operations are “consistent with” the NAC’s “primary purpose,” under which the operation will “not cause any material adverse impact on the natural assets” under the NAC’s control.

Not in Accordance with Law”

As the Attorney Generals from 25 states noted in comments submitted to the SEC on January 9, 2024:

“The BLM rule authorizes BLM to issue leases that limit public lands to no use or to extremely limited uses. The NYSE’s proposed rule change in turn provides the mechanism by which companies can obtain the funding necessary to pay for those money-losing leases. In this way, the proposed rule is part of an interlocking scheme designed to facilitate another agency’s violation of the law – namely, BLM’s issuance of illegal ‘conservation leases.’ Facilitating another agency’s violations is a textbook example of ultra vires agency action ‘not in accordance with law.’”

Furthermore, FLPMA does not define conservation as a principle or major use of public lands. The NAC rule cannot categorically dismiss these clear multiple-use and sustained yield FLPMA directives. The NAC rule unlawfully proposes to substitute non-use for multiple-use on public lands. Under the proposed NAC listing rules before the SEC, NACs would be prohibited from permitting mining, logging, fossil-fuel development, and industrial-scale agriculture on NAC-held lands because these activities are explicitly and categorically defined as “unsustainable.”

Given the shaky legal ground on which the NYSE proposed NACs rule stands, it has little chance of surviving what promises to be a multitude of court challenges. Additionally, the economic and social harm to everyday Americans by the scheme’s plan to lock up so much of the nation’s natural resources in perpetuity is incalculable. For these reasons, CFACT urges the SEC to reject the proposed NAC rule in toto. Only in this way can the SEC remain true to its mission statement cited above.

Thank you very much.

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D.
Senior Policy Analyst
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Washington, D.C.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Will the Pentagon’s solar panels be Chinese? thumbnail

Will the Pentagon’s solar panels be Chinese?

By Center For Security Policy

The Energy Department has announced it is putting solar panels on the roof of the Pentagon for environmental reasons. No study has been done on the feasibility of this venture. No one has figured out the actual capacity needed, the percentage of power it could generate, whether the Pentagon’s building can support such an installation or how disruptive installing a solar system could be to Pentagon operations, or even how long it would take. Furthermore, nothing has been done to figure out whether a solar power system will undermine the building’s electronic security.

The other big question is where will the solar system for the Pentagon come from? Will the panels be Chinese? What about the batteries? The switching system? If Chinese, could they bug the system?

Eight out of ten solar panels installed in the United States come from China. Even if the Pentagon buys American-made panels, the metallurgical grade silicon and polysilicon needed for solar panels mostly comes from China.

In addition, if the Pentagon is really going to rely for its operation on solar energy it will need massive batteries. The batteries will be based on lithium, and China is the world’s second-largest producer. When it comes to the actual batteries, the Solarquotes blog says this: “Six of the world’s ten largest lithium-ion battery companies are in China. They produced a whopping 79 percent of all lithium-ion batteries that entered the global market in 2021 and are projected to remain the leading country in lithium-ion battery manufacturing in 2025.”

Even if the battery packs are American, the individual batteries inside them probably come from Asia, most likely China.

The Pentagon is supposed to follow the Buy America Act. Usually, that is interpreted to mean that domestically sourced portions of the acquisition must add up to more than half the total cost. Vendors, however, are allowed to count installation costs in figuring the percent of US content.

Moreover, Buy America requirements are often waived. That has been necessary for the past three decades since Chinese-made computers, laptops, modems, and other electronics are used regularly even in strategic nuclear submarines. This is done by using “waivers” that are in the Act and in the Act’s regulations. A key provision allows waivers: “The provisions of the act may be waived if the head of the procuring agency determines the act to be inconsistent with the public interest or the cost of acquiring the domestic product is unreasonable.”

Neither the Department of Energy, which is providing the initial funding, nor the Defense Department is likely to look too hard if the stuff is full of Chinese content.

If the Pentagon gets a solar system, one hopes that the storage batteries are installed in a building separate from the Pentagon – in the same way that the Pentagons independent power plant is in a separate building.

While the Energy Department says it is paying for the solar panels, it’s likely that the installation cost and new buildings plus the special wiring and switching systems will have to come out of the Pentagon’s budget.

Read more.

Originally published by Asia Times


Stephen Bryen

Senior Fellow.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Electric Vehicles are Fleecing Us Out of Billions thumbnail

Electric Vehicles are Fleecing Us Out of Billions

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

When you buy a new internal combustion vehicle, you are also paying for someone else’s electric vehicle.

While the subsidies are egregious enough, it turns out EV manufacturers are fleecing us out of billions, and doing it with government help.

Attorneys Michael Buschbacher and James Conde explain at The Wall Street Journal:

When carmakers test gasoline-powered vehicles for compliance with the Transportation Department’s fuel-efficiency rules, they must use real values measured in a laboratory. By contrast, under an Energy Department rule, carmakers can arbitrarily multiply the efficiency of electric cars by 6.67. This means that although a 2022 Tesla Model Y tests at the equivalent of about 65 miles per gallon in a laboratory (roughly the same as a hybrid), it is counted as having an absurdly high compliance value of 430 mpg. That number has no basis in reality or law.

Government subsidies and mandates wildly distort automobile production.  And as Buschbacher and Conde further explain, this funny math sucker punches us all, right in the wallet:

For exaggerating electric-car efficiency, the government rewards carmakers with compliance credits they can trade for cash. Economists estimate these credits could be worth billions: a vast cross-subsidy invented by bureaucrats and paid for by every person who buys a new gasoline-powered car.

CFACT has been educating the public on the myriad follies stemming from government pushing us to buy electric vehicles for years.

Buschbacher and Conde remind us that makers of diesel vehicles, Volkswagen in particular, were fined tens of billions of dollars for fudging their emissions compliance math.

There should be no double standards for EV manufacturers fudging their math to cash in on compliance credits.

The government agencies enabling EV makers to fleece the public should be called to account as well.


Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president. Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C., Rucker is a frequent guest on radio talk shows, written extensively in numerous publications, and has appeared in such media outlets as Fox News, OANN, Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Hill, among many others. Rucker is also the co-producer of the award-winning film “Climate Hustle,” which was the #1 box-office film in America during its one night showing in 2016, as well as the acclaimed “Climate Hustle 2” staring Hollywood actor Kevin Sorbo released in 2020. As an accredited observer to the United Nations, Rucker has also led CFACT delegations to some 30 major UN conferences, including those in Copenhagen, Istanbul, Kyoto, Bonn, Marrakesh, Rio de Janeiro, and Warsaw, to name a few.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

John Curtis Has History Of Raking In Thousands From Green Energy Donors thumbnail

John Curtis Has History Of Raking In Thousands From Green Energy Donors

By The Daily Caller

  • Utah GOP Rep. John Curtis, who splits with many on the right on the issue of climate change, has received thousands in campaign donations from green energy donors, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
  • Curtis recently jumped in the race for outgoing Sen. Mitt Romney’s seat in 2024 after initially opting against such a bid, adding to the crowded Republican primary field.
  • “The Republican primary voters [sic] will have a choice to pick somebody as their nominee who is either more like Sen. [Mike] Lee, who I would argue is a true conservative, or more like Sen. [Mitt] Romney, who has never really been much of a conservative especially on these issues,” Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Republican Rep. John Curtis of Utah, who recently jumped into the race for outgoing Sen. Mitt Romney’s seat, has raked in thousands of dollars in donations for his congressional bids from the green energy industry, according to campaign finance records.

Curtis launched a campaign for Senate on Jan. 2 after previously ruling it out shortly after Romney announced he would not seek another term in the upper chamber, adding to the primary already chock-full of prominent Republicans. The congressman, who has split from many on the right about climate change, brought in thousands from green energy organizations and companies’ affiliated political action committees (PACs) during his four House bids, Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show.

“Congressman Curtis is one of the leaders of a small but vocal minority in the Republican Party that thinks that the Republicans need to capitulate on the issue of climate change for fear of losing younger voters, and the survey data simply just doesn’t bear that out,” Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Curtis is the chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, which states its goal is to reduce emissions while not limiting consumer choices. The caucus aims to inform members of “climate policies and legislation consistent with conservative values.”

The congressman believes that curbing climate change will bolster the economy rather than hinder it through promoting energy innovation in the private sector, like carbon capture, according to Politico.

The Bipartisan Climate Action’s political arm has given $13,500 in donations to the congressman’s campaign from 2021 to 2023, FEC data shows. The group is focused on reelecting members who push “significant, enduring, and bipartisan legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Between 2020 and 2022, the Environmental Defense Action Fund’s affiliated PAC donated $5,500 to Curtis’ congressional campaign, according to FEC filings. The nonprofit’s political arm, which is committed to “electing climate champions,” encourages the Biden administration to promote electric vehicles and reduce emissions.

Sunnova Energy’s corporate PAC contributed $1,000 to Curtis’s efforts in May 2023, along with another $1,000 donation in late September, just after he announced he was considering running for Senate, according to FEC filings. The company allegedly took advantage of elderly customers who were near-death by convincing them to sign expensive multi-decade rooftop solar contracts, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

“A lot of those companies are looking for a way to try to create a sense of bipartisanship in the sort of climate agenda. And when you have a member in the Republican Party that makes overtures about climate change, naturally, they will gravitate towards him,” Pyle said.

The campaign also brought in donations from the Solar Energy Industries Association’s affiliated PAC to the tune of $12,500 between 2022 and 2023, FEC records show. The trade association hopes that solar will “achieve 30% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030.”

Aligned PACs for SunPower and SunRun, two solar energy companies, have both given $2,500 to the congressman’s campaign in 2022 and 2023, respectively, according to FEC data.

Other affiliated PACs for green energy companies like NextEra EnergySempra Energy and Noble Energy have also donated thousands to Curtis’ campaign, to the tune of a combined $11,500 since 2018, according to FEC filings.

I just left the Lt Governor’s office where I filed to run for U.S. Senate! 🇺🇸 I’ll keep working hard to get things done for Utah & make our state an even better place. Together, we can ensure America has a bright future. Join me by donating/volunteering at

— John Curtis (@CurtisUT) January 3, 2024

Curtis has been critical of the Biden administration’s costly green energy efforts, including the president’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, according to Politico. The congressman hosts the “Conservative Climate Summit” on college campuses to engage with younger voters on the issue, and has travelled abroad to the last three U.N. climate summits.

“Being a marginal Republican, he will be a very popular candidate with Republican front groups, like [Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions] and Clear Path. He will also be popular with formerly Republican-leaning operations like the [American Petroleum Institute] and the Chamber,” Mike McKenna, GOP strategist and former Trump administration energy adviser, told the DCNF. “He may be one of the few people in Utah who would not be an upgrade from Sen. [Mitt] Romney.”

Curtis, former mayor of Provo, Utah, used to be a Democrat and served as his county party chair in the early 2000s, according to Deseret News.

Brent Orrin Hatch, son of the late Sen. Orrin Hatch who was succeeded by Romney, jumped into the race on the same day as Curtis. State House Speaker Brad Wilson launched a Senate bid in late September, and Riverton Mayor Trent Staggs has been running for Romney’s seat since May.

The Cook Political Report characterizes Romney’s seat as in the “Solid R” category. The GOP primary will be held on June 25.

A Guidant Polling and Strategy survey released in mid-December found Curtis with 40% support among the crowded Republican primary field, followed by Wilson at 11% and Staggs at 6%. The remaining 43% of likely primary voters were not yet sure of their choice.

“Voters of Utah will have a choice,” Pyle said. “The Republican primary voters [sic] will have a choice to pick somebody as their nominee who is either more like Sen. [Mike] Lee, who I would argue is a true conservative, or more like Sen. [Mitt] Romney, who has never really been much of a conservative especially on these issues.”

Curtis’ campaign did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: Rep Considering Bid To Replace Romney Has Long History Of Timely Stock Trading While In Office

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

KEVIN MOONEY: Biden Admin’s New Climate Rules Could Mean Big Payday For His Buddies, Burden For American Businesses thumbnail

KEVIN MOONEY: Biden Admin’s New Climate Rules Could Mean Big Payday For His Buddies, Burden For American Businesses

By The Daily Caller

In a setback for former government officials and attorneys poised to cash in on proposed climate disclosure rules, the Securities and Exchange Commission continued to kick the ball down the road last year.

Many of the objections raised in public comments revolve around so-called Scope 3 emissions that are not directly produced by companies and instead result from what occurs “upstream” and “downstream” of a company’s activities. That’s a problem because if the SEC rule is finalized the commission would effectively extend its jurisdiction to include private companies that transact business with public firms registered with the SEC.

There’s a strong case to be made that under this scenario the commission would be overstepping its authority, which would help to explain why the SEC has continuously slow-walked its proposal.

But there’s additional intrigue involving a somewhat unheralded “carbon accounting” firm equipped with specialized software known as Persefoni that could also gum up the works. The for-profit outfit founded in 2020 has managed to recruit several high-ranking SEC officials who all had a hand in crafting the climate rules first introduced in March 2022.

These include Allison Herren Lee, a former acting chair of the SEC, Kristina Wyatt, who served as the SEC’s senior counsel for climate and environmental, social, and corporate government (ESG), and Emily Pierce who served as the SEC’s assistant director in the Office of International Affairs.

The SEC estimates that it will cost anywhere from $460,000 to $640,000 for companies to comply with the new rules during the first year they are in operation. Given the complexity involved in tracking Scope 3 emissions, it’s not too difficult to imagine how Persefoni stands to benefit financially from software and accounting services specifically tailored for this purpose.

In fact, that appears to have been the plan right from the get-go. Influence Watch describes how the accounting firm and environmental activists joined forces to have substantial input on the disclosure rules. Moreover, Persefoni is prominently mentioned throughout the SEC proposal. But it’s not just carbon accountants who stand to benefit at the expense of companies that fall within the purview of the SEC.

Dan Kish, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, a Washington-based nonprofit, sees a potential “big payday for law firms” attached to the SEC’s supply chain reporting mandates.

“This is all about expanding the size and scope of government,” he said in an interview. “Lawyers can get involved with a class action lawsuit and they’ll say this particular company didn’t properly report their emissions. You can expect the lawyers to take a huge chunk from these suits. This gets into very gray areas about how a company can be expected to account for every single item along the supply chain.”

Kish continued:

“You’ll have lawyers intervening supposedly to protect the public interest, but they’ll be raking in all kinds of cash. The process doesn’t stop here since the law firms will then dump campaign contributions into the coffers of the people pushing these policies.”

The SEC’s actions can be viewed as just one small part of President Biden’s “whole-of-government effort” to push climate initiatives at the expense of taxpayers and energy producers.

Companies in the energy-intensive states, such as Pennsylvania, will likely feel a greater financial burden, explained Gordon Tomb, a senior fellow with Commonwealth Foundation, a free market think tank headquartered in Harrisburg, explained. (RELATED: DAVID BLACKMON: Left-Wing Billionaires Have A New Plan Up Their Sleeves In War On Fossil Fuels)

Pennsylvania is the second largest net supplier of energy to other states and the largest exporter of electricity to other states,” Tomb said. “As such, private companies supporting enterprises that emit carbon dioxide in the production of energy number at least in the hundreds and their employees in the many thousands. Imposing costs artificially constructed to advance a quasi-religious climate ideology and create ways for the politically connected to make money without producing a benefit is viciously economically destructive.”

Ultimately, it’s up to Congress to reign in overreaching executive agencies. Last June, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, (R-K.Y.) and Senate Banking Committee ranking member Tim Scott (R-S.C.) sent a joint letter to the SEC seeking information and documentation providing insight into the commission’s relationship with Persefoni and environmental activist groups. That’s an encouraging sign, but hardly sufficient for the potential victims of burdensome new regulations.



Kevin Mooney is the Senior Investigative Reporter at the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank, and writes for several national publications. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.


FRANK LASEE: Biden’s Energy Policy Is Tailor-Made To Crush The Middle Class

GROVER NORQUIST: Biden Enables Freeloading On American Innovation


Australian broadcaster, Alan Jones, utterly schools a panel of climate zealots on the reality of the #ClimateScam.

“CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, and human beings are responsible for 3% of that 0.04%… It’s like saying: ‘There’s a granule of sugar on the Harbour Bridge. Clean…

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) January 13, 2024

The people who want to regulate “the science” don’t even understand the very basics of science. Apocalyptic climate change is a scam religion and big money… nothing else. It’s the equivalent of human sacrifice to the gods. #ClimateScam

— Douglas Karr (@douglaskarr) January 12, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Name the Enemy: Globalists. What do they want? Everything thumbnail

Name the Enemy: Globalists. What do they want? Everything

By Karen Schoen

I think I am beginning to dislike the word “Sustainable” . I think it is the most overused words in the past 3 years. Everything we touch or do, all products, actions must be sustainable. Yet does anyone know what Sustainable ,means`. according to the dictionary sustainable means: able to be maintained at a certain rate or level. According to Gro Harlem Bruntland, author of Our Common Future, Globalist friend of Globalist Hillary Clinton, “Sustainable Developments means development of society that meets the needs of the present society without compromising the needs of future society to meet their own needs.

In simple terms Sustainable means CONTROL! 

In this controlled society there will be no growth, no innovation, no creation. You will do nothing without Government approval.

All activity will be regulated by a consensus of unelected Globalists who think they have the right to control you. They use the Precautionary Principal determining the worst case scenario on the computer and regulate as if it were true. They never take into consideration the genius of man in solving problems because they do not want problems solved. They lie and get the low information populace to believe they are taking action without scientific certainty to save future generations from scarcity of resources often screaming that without these restrictions, the planet will be destroyed by climate change. They restrict, catch shares, oil, water, coal, food, mobility Globalists lie so you will believe they must

NATIONALIZE EVERYTHING for the common good. In reality they are just a bunch of grifters determined to steal everything we own. We will own nothing and they will be happy.  

As Globalists must change mindset of Americans into do more for less. They intend to accomplish this through the Implementation and monitoring using  TECHNOLOGY by Digitalizing ID, Money, Surveillance Cameras, Vaccine Passports, Smart Meters while forcing people to live in SMART 15 minute cities.

Everything must be watched, shared, monitored for usage. You will be monitored for your consumption patterns and if you use too much you will be shut off. Smart Meters, Smart Grids, Red light Cameras, Social Credits, Vaccine Passport and Digital money will keep you in line with their program. S=Surveillance, M=Monitoring, A= Analysis, R=Reporting, T=Technology

” For the Globalists, the point isn’t to improve the world, the point is to control it, and control you. ” Mark Keenan. Read and share Mark’s article: Decoding the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s): Indoctrinating Your Children into the New Fake Sustainable World. Order..

This will never happen in America you say. Sorry wrong answer. It is already here. By lying and paying off elected officials, Globalist were able to get businesses to be their enforcer. They called fascism Public Private Partnerships (P3s).  Gov Rick Scott brought P3s to Florida. How did that work?

The Globalists wanted to redistribute the wealth of the middle class to themselves and their friends.  So they began to outlaw products that were perfectly fine but they didn’t control and were not making money from.  All of a sudden the inexpensive incandescent made in America light bulb was not sustainable. It had to be replaced by the CFL (compact fluorescent light bulb) Never mind that the CFL was filled with mercury and harmful to the environment if broken and were 3 times as expensive. But they were made in China in companies owned by Globalists.

Globalists hate competition so only favored companies who followed Globalist regulations would get government contracts. PPPs began replacing small family owned American companies. Covid  insured that many small companies went under while regulations are finishing the rest. Today it is almost impossible for a small business to make money. That is the idea.

None for thee and all for me should be the motto of the Globalists. Nothing is more in your face than the lies about beef. In Ireland ranchers were told to kill 1/3 of their herd because cows expel methane gas and that is harming the planet. All over the globe the cry is save the planet, kill the cows. What will happen if this is ever done?  People will starve which is the idea.  Less People, Less Problems. So what will the Globalists eat?  Will they eat bugs?  Don’t count on it. Today we learned that Mark Zuckerberg is raising a herd of “high quality beef” on his ranch in Hawaii.

For a clear understanding of how you are being fleeced you this is a MUST SEE documentary The Great Taking   You must prepare.

All is not grim if we act. Globalists can not handle the truth. The world is waking up and all over populists are winning elections. Will it be easy? NO. It took Globalists a long time to get this much control. They will not go away without a fight. But the truth will win.

How do you spot a Globalist? They are in both parties. Its very easy. Just ask your candidate what MAGA means.  Ask them what kind of government does America have? If they say a democracy, say next. If they say a Republic ask them what is the difference between a democracy and a republic. There is only one way to save America that is – with hard work. Are you up to it? Did you share? Contact your legislator? Did you get 5?

Did you comment to the SEC about the NAC?

Did you Call your legislator Send them an email, tweet, phone call. Tell them Close the Border or Close the government

See MTG Hearing on the Covid Vaccine, then call your legislator and tell them NO to the WHO.

©2024. All rights reserved.


Florida: Stop Article V a.k.a. Con-Con CON: ACT NOW: Con-Con resolutions HCR 693 and HCR 703 have passed to next committee 1/11. Tell your legislator NO to Con-Con CON

Education Bills Florida Citizens Alliance


Florida legislature is trying to cut the HOPE scholarship giving a scholarship for students to get out of Public School if bullied. Sign the petition.

Defend Florida,

These Election Integrity Bills need sponsors :  HB135 – Voter Registration Applications

HB 671 Ballot Boxes

HB 359 – Voting Systems

SB 190 – Ballot Boxes

VIDEO: This is what the don’t want you to know about the ‘Climate Agenda’ — Tucker interviews Dr. Willie Soon thumbnail

VIDEO: This is what the don’t want you to know about the ‘Climate Agenda’ — Tucker interviews Dr. Willie Soon

By Dr. Rich Swier

QUESTION: What is the climate agenda all about?

ANSWER: Control of our lives.

Dr. Willie Soon’s interview by Tucker Carlson

In December 2023, CERES-Science co-founder, Dr. Willie Soon, was invited to talk to Tucker Carlson about energy policy, climate change and approaches to science.

The full interview covered a lot of topics and lasted 48 minutes.

WATCH: This is what the don’t want you to know about the ‘Climate Agenda’

The CERES Team reported,

Dr. Soon’s comments on the discussion of the origin of fossil fuels

In the first part of the interview, Tucker Carlson asked Dr. Soon some questions about the possibility that hydrocarbons (gas, oil and coal) could be produced “abiogenically” as opposed to requiring a biological source.

Gas, oil and coal are commonly referred to as “fossil fuels”. The term is based on the concept that all of these hydrocarbons where formed millions of years ago when prehistoric plants and animals died and were gradually buried by layers of rock. That is, they are supposedly all formed from the compression of biological “fossils” that became buried under ground for millions of years.

Dr. Soon was pointing out that there is considerable evidence that this is not the only way that hydrocarbons can be produced:

  • For example, in a 2009 paper in Nature Geoscience, Kolesnikov and colleagues showed that under very high pressures and temperatures, methane gas can be converted into short-chained hydrocarbons (
  • Another example they discussed was the fact that liquid methane and small-chained hydrocarbons are found in Saturn’s moon, Titan – see Mastrogiuseppe and colleagues (2019), Nature Astronomy;; Hayes (2016). Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
  • Meanwhile, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have also been found in Titan’s atmosphere – see Zhao and colleagues (2018), Nature Astronomy,
  • They also mentioned that multiple chlorinated hydrocarbons have been identified on Mars by the Curiosity rover – see Freissinet and colleagues (2015), Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets,
  • Finally, several studies have suggested that PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) can also be formed in interstellar space (i.e., deep space in between stars). E.g., Dorian S. N. Parker and colleagues (2011), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

But what does all of this mean?

From Dr. Soon’s perspective, it means we should be careful not to assume all of the hydrocarbons on Earth are “fossil fuels”. We do not yet know what percentage of the Earth’s hydrocarbons were formed from biological fossils and what percentage were formed from non-biological (“abiogenic”) processes.

However, it should be stressed that this does not necessarily mean that our accessible hydrocarbon reserves are limitless. As Dr. Soon pointed out the conditions Kolesnikov and colleagues (2009) showed could produce hydrocarbons abiogenically occur very deep underground – at least 50-100 miles. In contrast, the deepest oil or gas drill so far have only been 6 to 8 miles deep.

Dr. Soon also pointed out that current drills are not able to extract 100% of the oil and gas in the reserves – as the oil or gas is extracted, the pressure required to extract more becomes greater until it eventually becomes impractical to remove (with current technology, including fracking).

So, in terms of practical gas, oil and coal exploration, arguably it does not make much difference how the hydrocarbons in the known reserves were produced. Moreover, most coal, oil and gas companies spend considerable financial resources in the exploration of new reserves. This shows that from an economic perspective, the companies that are most heavily invested in the existing reserves are actively seeking new potential sites to drill.

On the other hand, as Dr. Soon later discussed, the widespread debates over “limited resources” and “renewable energies” are often non-scientific and unrealistic.

©2024. CERES Team. All rights reserved.

Liberal Foundations Poured Tens Of Millions Of Dollars Into Influential Environmental Org Tied To Chinese Government thumbnail

Liberal Foundations Poured Tens Of Millions Of Dollars Into Influential Environmental Org Tied To Chinese Government

By The Daily Caller

Major U.S.-based liberal charitable foundations have donated millions of dollars to Energy Foundation China (EFC), a San Francisco-based environmental nonprofit with deep ties to the Chinese government.

U.S.-based liberal charities, such as the Hewlett Foundation and nonprofits managed by left-wing dark money consultancy Arabella Advisors, have poured over $100 million into EFC since 2020, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review of tax filings and foundation grant databases. EFC uses those funds to bankroll U.S.-based climate activists and to support the development of clean energy in China.

EFC has close ties to the Chinese state; at least nine members of the organization’s leadership and senior staff have previously held positions in China’s government, with one described in a Tsinghua University press release as an “outstanding [Chinese] Communist Party member.”

EFC spent more than $52 million funding green projects and organizations in the United States and China in 2022, according to tax forms.

EFC funds several of the U.S.-based organizations that have played a role in influencing the Biden administration’s climate agenda. American groups funded by EFC have, among other things, opposed the development of new oil drilling sites and promoted renewable energy technologies, like solar panels.

Green Cash

Liberal foundations have poured millions into EFC over the last four years, specifically for climate and energy programs in China, tax documents and grant databases show.

EFC had been a program under the Energy Foundation before breaking off and becoming an independent legal entity in 2019, according to its website. Prior to 2019, grants from charitable foundations to EFC were made out to the Energy Foundation and earmarked for EFC.

The Packard Foundation, Hewlett Foundation and MacArthur Foundation, all major players in American environmental activism, were some of EFC’s largest donors, representing almost 40% of the over $217.1 million the group raised between 2020 and 2022.

The MacArthur Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation donated at least $6 million and $67 million to EFC, respectively, between 2020 and 2023. The Packard Foundation, meanwhile, has donated about $19.3 million to the organization since 2020, according to its grant database.

Likewise, senior employees of the MacArthur Foundation, the Packard Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation hold seats on EFC’s board of directors.

The MacArthur Foundation gave EFC $2 million between 2020 and 2021 to help “China transition to a sustainable energy future,” according to its tax filings.

The Hewlett Foundation, meanwhile, paid out grants explicitly to fund EFC’s pro-Chinese government activities.

The Energy Foundation, which housed EFC at the time, received $8.4 million from the Hewlett Foundation in 2016 in part to fund EFC’s efforts to support the “climate implementation goals for China’s 13th Five-Year Plan.”

China’s Five-Year plan is formulated by the CCP and “sets forth China’s strategic intentions and defines its major objectives” for a five year period, according to the Chinese government.

Furthermore, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave EFC $200,000 in 2021 to support “low carbon transportation planning in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao greater bay area.” Rockefeller Brothers spent $200,000 bankrolling a similar project in 2019.

EFC’s donors, while funding the organization’s China-based activities, also served as major backers of domestic liberal activists. The Packard, Hewlett and MacArthur foundations, for instance, have poured millions of dollars into Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, according to tax filings.

The Energy Foundation’s activities in China also attracted significant support from entities tied to the Democratic Party.

The Heising-Simons Foundation, a California-based family charity founded by Democratic megadonors Liz Simons and Mark Heising. The foundation gave $925,000 to the Energy Foundation for its Chinese operations in 2017 and about $2.3 million in 2018, when EFC was still part of the Energy Foundation, according to tax forms.

Simons and Heising have donated nearly $10 million to Democrats and members of Congress who caucus with the Democrats since 2020, campaign finance records show.

Windward Fund and Hopewell Fund, nonprofits managed by the Democrat-aligned consultancy Arabella Advisors, supported EFC to the tune of nearly $2.5 million between 2020 and 2022, according to tax filings.

Several of the funds managed by Arabella Advisors are “dark money” organizations that are not required to disclose their donors and direct the bulk of their grants to left-wing and Democrat-aligned groups. Hopewell and Windward disclose their donors, however Hopewll received funds from Sixteen Thirty Fund, an organization in Arabella’s network that does not disclose donors, according to tax forms.

“Windward Fund recognizes that the climate crisis is a global challenge,” the organization said in a statement to the DCNF.

The Packard Foundation, Heising Simons Foundation, Hopewell Fund, MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Hewlett Foundation did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

The China Connection

Former Chinese government officials have an outsized presence among EFC’s leadership and senior staff.

Zhang Hongjun, who is on EFC’s board of directors, was an official in China’s National Environmental Protection Agency and a legislative director in China’s National People’s Congress, focusing on environmental laws, according to EFC’s website.

The National People’s Congress (NPC) is “the highest organ of State power in China,” according to its website. The NPC operates under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and leaders of the NPC’s standing committee, a powerful subset of the NPC, are “invariably influential members of the CCP and leaders of major mass organizations,” according to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

He Kebin, another board member, was a representative in the Beijing Municipal People’s Congress in 2018, according to Sina, a Chinese-language media outlet. The Beijing Municipal People’s Congress works under the direct leadership of the CCP in implementing policy and providing services in China’s capital city, according to a report published by the mayor of Beijing in January 2023.

A group of universities in Beijing awarded Kebin the title of “outstanding member of the [Chinese] communist party” at a celebration marking the 99th anniversary of the CCP, according to a press release from Tsinghua University.

Several board members, including Kebin and Hongjun, are listed as council members on the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development’s (CCICED) website. CCICED was founded in 1992 with the approval of the Chinese government and advises the Chinese government on environmental policy and development, according to the organization’s website.

CCICED reports to the Chinese government’s State Council and its executive committee is staffed by several high-ranking Chinese government officials, according to the organization’s website.

CCICED Chairman Ding Xuexiang is the top-ranking vice premier of the People’s Republic of China and a member of the CCP’s Politburo Standing Committee, a seven-person Chinese government body headed by General Secretary Xi Jinping.

Other EFC board members are listed as special advisors for CCICED, including Shenyu BelskyHongpeng Lei and EFC President Zou Ji.

Zou Ji formerly served as deputy director general of China’s state-run National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation, and he was a key player in China’s delegation to the Paris Climate Accords in 2015, according to his bio on EFC’s website.

EFC paid Ji almost $500,000 in 2021 for his work as the group’s president and CEO, according to the organization’s 2021 tax filing. Board members Kebin and Hongjun drew compensation of $6,000 and $4,500, respectively, according to the 2021 filing.

EFC’s Senior Program Director of Strategic Communications Hui Jing formerly worked at the state-run National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Lan Yu, a program officer for EFC’s Low Carbon Economic Growth initiative, previously served in China’s finance and environmental ministries, according to their respective bios on EFC’s website.

Xin Liu, who leads EFC’s environmental management division, formerly served as a senior official in the Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau, and Ping He, who is the program director of EFC’s industry program, worked at the state-run Chinese Academy of Sciences for almost a decade, according to EFC’s website.

While the organization’s tax forms say it’s based in San Francisco, EFC also has an office in Beijing, which, according to the group’s website, is “registered with the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and supervised by the National Development and Reform Commission of China.”

The National Development and Reform Commission of China (NDRC) is a Chinese government agency that exists to “formulate and implement strategies on national economic and social development” and create “strategies, plans and policies for utilizing foreign capital,” according to the NDRC’s website. The commission also is involved with the Chinese military as it “undertake[s] specific tasks of the National Defense Mobilization Committee,” according to its website.

Additionally, EFC disclosed a payment of nearly $400,000 for “consulting services” to the state-run China News Service on its 2020 tax forms.

The State Department designated China News Service as a foreign mission in 2020, meaning that it was found to be effectively controlled by the Chinese government.

‘China’s Ambitious Climate Vision’

Among other things, EFC says its goals are to improve China’s transportation system, to help the communist country achieve clean economic growth and to promote “China’s ambitious climate vision.” EFC aimed to assist China in becoming “the world leader in clean energy production, consumption, and investment, by 2030,” according to an archived version of the organization’s webpage

“Communist China is our enemy, and their ‘green energy’ policies are based on slave and child labor, government subsidies and trade abuses,” Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott told the DCNF.

EFC has also funneled large sums of money into influential, left-of-center environmental groups in the U.S.

Domestic climate groups, like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), received millions from EFC between 2020 and 2022.

RMI, a nonprofit dedicated to “working to accelerate the clean energy transition,” was behind a study cited by Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr.’s decision to consider a ban on gas stoves, which attracted significant controversy.

The Colorado-based organization also partnered with the Chinese government to produce a report advising a transition away from oil and gas. EFC was also involved in producing that report.

White House officials have met privately with leaders of RMI, Fox News Digital reported.

EFC gave about $1.8 million to RMI between 2020 and 2022, tax forms show.

NRDC, meanwhile, received about $700,000 from EFC between 2020 and 2022, according to tax forms.

NRDC describes itself as the “first national environmental advocacy group to focus on legal action.” NRDC has opposed expanded oil drilling in the United States, power plants that run on coalmining projects and the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

NRDC also has close ties to the Biden administration.

Gina McCarthy, NRDC’s former president, served as the White House’s national climate advisor from 2021 to 2022, Fox reported. The organization’s current president, Manish Bapna, has attended at least two White House meetings and the NRDC regularly communicates with Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry’s office, Fox reported.

“There are those, foremost among them, John Kerry, but there are many others who believe the existential challenge of our time … is climate change, and therefore we must have a more cooperative relationship with China,” House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mike Gallagher told the DCNF.

“That’s nonsense. We need to get realistic before it’s too late. Thinking that Xi Jinping cares about the documents that are signed at [the United Nations Climate Change Conference] is naïve, utopian nonsense. It reflects a profound misunderstanding of how the geopolitical world works.”

NRDC and RMI both have offices in China.

EFC has provided funding to RMI and NRDC’s Chinese programs, though grants to those organizations on EFC’s most recent publicly-available tax forms are earmarked for “education and analysis” operations with no mention of China.

RMI employs a number of former Chinese government officials through its China program. Ting LiMinhui GaoKaidi GuoQiyu Liu and Qian Sun are among the RMI staffers who formerly held posts in the Chinese government.

EFC did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Admin Doubles Down On Climate Cooperation With China As Xi’s Economy Goes On Coal Binge

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

DAVID BLACKMON: The One Simple Reason Electric Vehicles Are Doomed To Fail thumbnail

DAVID BLACKMON: The One Simple Reason Electric Vehicles Are Doomed To Fail

By The Daily Caller

In a story that seems to be becoming increasingly common as time goes on, The Western Journal reported this week about a Canadian EV owner experiencing some massive sticker shock over the cost of replacing the damaged battery in his electric vehicle.

Now, those of us who have always driven internal combustion engine (ICE) cars have at one time or another been faced with big repair bills for some of those vehicles. I can remember spending $4,000 on a new radiator for a 10-year-old Infiniti QX 50 with 220,000 miles on it that I just couldn’t bear to part with several years back. I did finally retire that wonderful vehicle when faced with the prospect of a $6,000 tag for a rebuilt transmission.

So, all cars will eventually cost you or your insurance company big money to repair — no one is saying that’s unique to EVs. But where EVs are concerned, it’s the magnitude of the price for replacing a damaged or worn-out battery that is often quite eye-popping.

I wrote a story in September about a fellow in the U.S. deciding to junk his paid-off EV when he got an estimate of $30k to replace his battery. We now see frequent reports that auto insurance companies are charging higher rates for EVs than for comparable ICE cars due in large part to this extravagant battery replacement cost.

If you think that $30,000 is extravagant, well, get ready, because it apparently isn’t even close to the worst-case scenario. Per the Western Journal, a Canadian man, Kyle Hsu, paid roughly $55,000 Canadian ($41,583 US) in 2022 to buy a brand new Hyundai IONIQ 5. But, less than a year later, Mr. Hsu was involved in what seemed to be a minor accident resulting in superficial damage to his beautiful EV.

Unfortunately for Hsu, it turned out that the battery protector cover on his car’s undercarriage was warped, a problem that could in certain instances cause the battery to explode. This meant that he would have to replace his car’s battery pack in addition to fixing its structural damage. Hsu says he was shocked when the estimate to replace the battery came in at $61,000 Canadian, or about $46,000 in US dollars. That’s almost $6,000 more than he paid for the car when he purchased it brand new.

Even worse, because the damage was caused by an accident, the bill was not covered by the car’s warranty, leaving Hsu with the alternative of filing a claim with his insurance carrier. But the resulting insurance implications were enormous, with Mr. Hsu facing a rate increase of up to 50% if he filed the claim. His only other choice would be to foot the repair bill himself and now have over $87,000 US dollars invested in a $41,000 car.

This is insane. This is not sustainable. The EV industry simply cannot have stories like this one popping up with increasing frequency and hope to sustain growing demand for its products.

When you combine horror stories like this one with:

  • range anxiety that pops up any time the weather isn’t perfect;
  • the lack of charging infrastructure;
  • the unreliability of the infrastructure that does exist;
  • the non-recyclability of the battery materials;
  • the increasing restrictions on charging due to the massive load EVs place on the grid;
  • and all the other significant issues EV makers have yet to address,

You see an industry that is almost doomed to failure before it really gets up and running.

I frequently remind readers that EVs have been around since the 1880s. They are not a new idea in any sense of that word. If they were really the answer to displacing ICE cars at societal scale, it seems likely they would have already done so. What we see popping up with increasing frequency now in the form of stories like this one are simply manifestations of the reasons why that has not already happened.

EVs today are what they have always been: A niche product, a luxury item suitable to fill discreet purposes for the upper 5% or so elites in any society. The technology simply is not there yet to make them anything more than that.



David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.


DAVID BLACKMON: Climate Fascists Are On The March

Climate Radicals Block Major Highway In Netherlands

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

‘Tremendously Damaging’: Here’s The Most Aggressive Restrictions Biden’s EPA Pushed On Americans In 2023 thumbnail

‘Tremendously Damaging’: Here’s The Most Aggressive Restrictions Biden’s EPA Pushed On Americans In 2023

By The Daily Caller

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pushed several aggressive climate regulations in 2023 that could seriously harm the American economy, energy policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The agency proposed or finalized rules that would spur the electric vehicle (EV) transition, decrease power grid reliability by imposing costly restrictions on power plants, tighten air quality standards and more in 2023. Under the Biden administration, the EPA has made considerable efforts to further regulations that would nominally help to counter climate change, often at the expense of the American economy, energy policy experts told the DCNF.

“The EPA took a disturbing trend to a new level in 2023: a willingness to use its regulatory power to kill off industries, dictate or influence what businesses can operate and limit what goods and services are available to the public,” Daren Bakst, the director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told the DCNF. “Congress never envisioned the agency’s authorized regulatory power would be used as a tool for the agency to engage in central planning, reshape industries and limit consumer choice.”

The “Clean Power Plan 2.0″

The EPA’s May proposal to slash greenhouse gas emissions from power plants would require fossil fuel-fired generation facilities to adopt expensive developing technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and hydrogen blending, in order to come into compliance over the coming decades. If finalized in its current form, the regulations— which the EPA contends are legal under the auspices of the Clean Air Act— would significantly raise the chances of blackouts in a massive swath of the Midwest while imposing costs to stakeholders totaling nearly $250 billion, according to analysis conducted by the Center of the American Experiment (CAE).

Power the Future, an energy advocacy organization, dubbed the proposal the “Clean Power Plan 2.0” in a November report because of its strong resemblance to the Obama administration’s “Clean Power Plan” proposal, which the Supreme Court struck down in its landmark decision in West Virginia v. EPAin 2022.

The EPA is moving forward with the proposal, despite the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and a key official for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission warning that the premature retirement of fossil fuel-fired baseload generation and increased reliance on intermittent green energy, like wind and solar, threatens future grid reliability.

“The proposed rule does not require that plants go offline,” an EPA spokesperson told the DCNF in August. “The proposed rule would require plants to install proven technology to abate greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal provides owners and operators of power plants with ample lead time and substantial compliance flexibilities, allowing power companies and grid operators to make sound long-term planning and investment decisions, and supporting the power sector’s ability to continue delivering reliable and affordable electricity.”

However, CAE and one of its leading grid experts, Isaac Orr, are not convinced.

The agency “does not appear to have the expertise necessary to enact such a sweeping regulation on the American power sector,” CAE wrote in its August comments in response to the agency’s proposal.

“This is the regulatory equivalent of studying the structural integrity of the top floor of a 100-story building without doing so for the preceding 99 floors,” Orr told the DCNF.

Tailpipe Emissions Standards

In April, the agency unveiled its proposal for new tailpipe emissions standards in an effort to curb emissions attributable to transportation. The proposed standards would be historically stringent if finalized and they would effectively mandate that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after model year 2032 are EVs, according to the EPA.

Under the proposed rules, 46% of medium-duty vehicle sales and 25% of heavy-duty sales will be EVs, according to the agency’s projections.

The proposal could be “tremendously damaging for the American people,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, told the DCNF. “The reason the agency is pushing these rules is because Congress would never pass these as laws … this rule would be very damaging for Americans and get rid of an iconic means of transportation.”

The administration has spent billions to facilitate its ambitious EV push, and other agencies, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have promulgated their own similar rules as well. Despite these efforts, the American EV market is on tenuous footing: consumer demand is not growing as rapidly as anticipated, companies are losing large sums of money on their EV product lines, auto executives are starting to back away from short-term EV production targets and the nation’s EV charging infrastructure remains inconsistent and unevenly distributed across the country.

Notably, the House passed a bill that would effectively nullify the proposal earlier in December by a bipartisan vote, but it is unlikely to make it through the Senate, and the White House has suggested that President Joe Biden will veto the bill if it lands on his desk, according to The Hill.

Fine Particulate Pollution Standards

In January, the EPA proposed to tighten the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate pollution (PM 2.5) in order “to better protect communities, including those most overburdened by pollution,” the agency announced in a press release.

More than 70 industrial executives penned a letter to White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients warning him that it could lead to massive swaths of the nation falling out of compliance with the rule, which would in turn choke economic development and complicate key goals of Biden’s own green industrial agenda, according to its text.

The states that would be most directly impacted by a finalized PM 2.5 NAAQS update would be Texas, California, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Illinois, according to the letter’s text.

“PM 2.5 is the most demonstrable science fraud going on at the EPA,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, previously told the DCNF. “There is more than enough scientific research to demonstrate that what EPA is doing here is fraud, and it is really a testament to the corruption of the scientific community.”

If finalized, the proposal would kill jobs and put the EPA in a position to deny local economies the right to develop, because states that can not comply with the tightened standards would have to receive approval from the agency to develop new industrial factories and power facilities, Milloy told the DCNF.

The EPA projects that the policy would generate up to $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032, as well as prevent 4,200 premature deaths per year and restore 270,000 lost workdays per year by reducing the current standard of allowable fine particle pollution by up to 25%.

Waters of the United States

In January, the agency proposed a regulation that would define the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the EPA’s regulatory purview as “navigable waters” to include lands containing small streams and wetlands. A federal court blocked the January proposal in April, finding that the 24 states that sued the agency had “persuasively shown that the new 2023 Rule poses a threat to their sovereign rights and amounts to irreparable harm.”

Then, in May, the Supreme Court limited the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act — which it had cited as the enabling statute for the January proposal — in its decision in Sackett v. EPA, a case brought by a couple whom the EPA tried to stop from constructing a house on their land in Idaho.

In August, the agency “finalized amendments to its January rule, which are just a half-hearted and incomplete set of corrections to try and fix the flawed rule,” Bakst told the DCNF. “These amendments don’t properly comply with the Sackett opinion and fail to provide needed clarity to implement the opinion. And they did so without seeking public comment.”

The EPA exhibited a “complete disregard for private property owners and the rule of law” in its proceedings pursuant to WOTUS regulation in 2023, Bakst told the DCNF.

Neither the EPA nor the White House responded immediately to a request for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: EPA Bureaucrats Can Rake In Six-Figure Salaries While Mostly Working From Home, Report Finds

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

New York City’s Climate Policies Could Make Life Even More ‘Unaffordable’ For The Middle Class thumbnail

New York City’s Climate Policies Could Make Life Even More ‘Unaffordable’ For The Middle Class

By The Daily Caller

New York City is moving forward with several climate policies which are likely to make everyday life even more costly for the middle class in one of the country’s most expensive cities.

The city is aiming to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% come 2050, push a sweeping building electrification mandate known as Local Law 97 and impose an automobile traffic congestion fee, each of which will increase the costs of living or working in the nation’s largest city, especially for the middle class, energy and New York policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan each already rank within the 15 most expensive places to live in the U.S., according to an analysis conducted by CNBC.

“The city is wealthy because, somewhere out there, people are producing energy, food, clothing and so on, and people are trading all of that in New York,” Dan Kish, a senior fellow for the Institute for Energy Research, told the DCNF. The city’s emissions target “will make things more expensive and drive people away to places like Florida,” he added.

The New York Times Editorial Board Applauds Green New Deal

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 25, 2019

That flight of capital would shrink the tax base, thereby straining the city’s finances further, Kish told the DCNF. “People without the means, working people, do not have the opportunity to just pack up and leave,” Kish told the DCNF. “But it’s easy if you’re Mike Bloomberg.”

Local Law 97, meanwhile, is poised to impose emissions standards that approximately 50,000 buildings in New York City will have to meet starting in 2024, with additional restrictions imposed starting in 2030, according to The New York Times.

Some buildings are easier to retrofit with the appropriate wiring and equipment necessary to comply than others, and a large share of the high costs incurred by landlords and building owners for coming into compliance will almost certainly be passed on to residents, Jane Menton, a mother who lives in a Queens co-op and has led a grassroots effort to fight against Local Law 97, told the DCNF.

“Progressives in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn are so afraid to go against the narrative that this rule is a climate solution… but it’s unaffordable to convert buildings to electric so they won’t convert to comply with the rule, they will just pay fines which will then allow the city to use the money to plug gaps in the budget,” Menton told the DCNF. “The same politicians and advocates who claim to care about the city’s working class wrote a law that will push them out of their homes… functionally, this law is just a carbon tax on the middle class.”

Notably, other cities, such as Boston, have pushed for similar building electrification policies to fight climate change, and the Biden administration has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help state and municipal governments pursue policies that “decarbonize” buildings as well.

The New York City congestion pricing tax is promulgated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which is technically not an agency operating under the auspices of the municipal government.

Congestion pricing is meant to reduce emissions and air pollution by charging drivers fees to enter certain sections of the city. Specifically, the MTA has proposed to charge passenger cars $15 and trucks as much as $36 to be able to enter a large swath of Manhattan, according to local outlet NBC 4.

However, the proposal may not significantly reduce the amount of traffic that piles up on the city’s roadways, potentially even increasing the amount of congestion in areas like the Bronx, according to the New York Post. Qualifying low-income drivers who register with the appropriate authorities could also receive a 50% discount on the charges after their first ten trips into the relevant area of Manhattan, according to local digital news outlet

“Congestion pricing should be viewed primarily as a revenue action to cover the MTA’s indefensibly high capital costs,” Ken Girardin, director of research for the Empire Center, a New York-focused think tank, told the DCNF. “As to congestion itself, policymakers have declined to do basic things like enforce parking rules or dial back the parking permits given to public employees or other policy changes that would take cars off lower Manhattan roads because those aren’t things you can borrow money against.”

The policy would also make life more expensive for people who do not live in the city but make the commute each day to go to work, according to Politico. Notably, politicians in London, the U.K’s largest metropolis, have attempted a similar scheme, which Republican New York City Councilman Joseph Borelli of Staten Island described as “a complete disaster” and an “abject failure” when discussing New York’s forthcoming version of the scheme in January.

“If all of New York state went ‘net-zero’ today, United Nations climate modeling indicates that a mere 0.0023° F of global warming would be avoided by 2050. That is far from measurable, much less significant. So nothing would be accomplished,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, told the DCNF. Businesses will stay in NYC and play along with the climate agenda, including high taxes, as long as costs can be passed on to locals. When profitability stops, businesses will leave… The costs of the climate agenda are regressive. Poorer people will feel them first.”

The offices of Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams and the MTA did not respond immediately to the DCNF’s request for comment.





This Populous Blue State Has A Green Energy Mandate. Experts Say It Threatens Grid Reliability

Fresh Off Their Alaska Failure, The Eco-Left Has Its Sights Set On A New Gas Project

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Investors Are Turning On A Key Pillar Of Biden’s Climate Agenda thumbnail

Investors Are Turning On A Key Pillar Of Biden’s Climate Agenda

By The Daily Caller

Investors are backing off of electric vehicle (EV) charging companies, a key player in the Biden administration’s wider climate agenda, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

Major companies in the industry— including ChargePoint, EVgo and Blink Charging— have seen their stock prices tumble over the past year as investors worry about their profitability, a sign of potential trouble for an industry that the White House is counting on to reach its aggressive longer-term EV targets, according to the WSJ. The administration has set aside billions of dollars to boost the industry, which it will need to thrive in order to develop a nationwide network of charging stations.

ChargePoint’s stock price is down 74% in 2023, while EVgo and Blink Charging have seen their shares lose 21% and 67% of their value, respectively, according to the WSJ.

Buttigieg says you don’t have to worry about gas prices if you buy an electric vehicle…someone should remind him how out of touch he sounds

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 7, 2022

ChargePoint, which the administration has touted in the recent past, is also currently subject to a class action lawsuit that alleges company executives engaged in securities fraud by making misleading statements that unduly inflated the firm’s share price.

“I think the investor class has grown weary of the industry’s lack of profitability,” Blink Charging’s CEO Brendan Jones told the WSJ. EV charging companies once received lofty valuations from investors, Jones told the WSJ.

The Biden administration spent $7.5 billion in the bipartisan infrastructure law to help build out a nationwide network of 500,000 charging stations in order to help reach its goal of having 50% of all new car sales be EVs by 2030. McKinsey, a leading consulting firm, has estimated that there will need to be about 1.5 million public chargers installed by 2030 if that target is to be achieved, according to the WSJ. At present, there are nearly 160,000 public chargers available at approximately 60,000 locations nationwide.

EV charging companies are generally struggling to turn a profit right now, but they expect to attain profitability within the next year or two, according to the WSJ. However, the wider EV industry is lagging despite the Biden administration’s efforts to support it, and charging companies find themselves in a difficult bind: more consumers need to switch to EVs to help these companies improve their performance, but consumers may be hesitant to do so if the reliability of the nation’s charging infrastructure remains inconsistent.

Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated coastal areas as opposed to more rural areas of the country, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).

ChargePoint, EVgo, Blink Charging and the White House did not respond immediately to requests for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Ernst Is Pulling The Plug On Biden’s Electric Vehicle Charging Initiative

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Big Wind Closes Out The Year With One Of Its Biggest Defeats Ever thumbnail

Big Wind Closes Out The Year With One Of Its Biggest Defeats Ever

By The Daily Caller

A federal judge sided with a Native American tribe in a dispute with a major wind developer on Wednesday, handing a massive defeat to the wind industry to end 2023.

U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ordered Enel, a major green energy company based in Rome with an American presence, to tear down an enormous wind farm that the firm had constructed in Osage County, Oklahoma, over the consistent protest of the Osage tribe who live in the area, according to the Tulsa World. The ruling is a huge victory for the Osage tribe, who opposed the project because of its location relative to burial sites and the ecological damage inflicted upon eagles by the massive turbines, and a stark defeat for Enel, which is now staring down hundreds of millions of dollars in decommissioning charges.

The wind farm had been the subject of a lengthy legal battle between the Osage Nation and the developer, spanning back to 2011, when the tribe filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the development illegally deprived the tribe of access to the mineral deposits beneath the site of the project, according to the Tulsa World. The project featured 84 turbines, as well as required equipment like transmission lines and weather towers, spread over 8,400 acres of land that Choe-Groves asserted was leased illegally and to the detriment of the tribe’s sovereignty.

Biden’s Climate Bill Boosted An Offshore Wind Giant, But His Economy Brought It To The Brink

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 3, 2023

There will be a trial for damages following Choe-Groves’ ruling, according to the Tulsa World.

Notably, Enel states on its website that it exhibits “an unmatched commitment to sustainability and a just and inclusive energy transition for all.” Paolo Romanacci, who is the head of Enel Green Power North America, also serves as the director for the American Clean Power Association, a green energy trade group that has spent millions of dollars lobbying the federal government to advance the interests of the green energy industry, according to data from Open Secrets.

The ordered deconstruction of 84 wind turbines is “unprecedented,” according to Robert Bryce, an energy sector expert who also keeps track of local rejections of major renewable energy projects across the country. Bryce estimates that the company stood to reap tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies for the project, a dynamic which he considers at least partially responsible for the firm’s insistence to continue building and operating the project despite the persistent objections of the tribe.

“I hope no other tribe has to do what we had to do,” Osage Minerals Council Chairman Everett Waller told the Tulsa World, referencing the tribe’s long legal battle against the project. “This is a win not only for the Osage Minerals Council; this is a win for Indian Country. There are a lot of smaller tribes that couldn’t have battled this long, but that’s why we’re Osages. We’re here, and this is our homeland, and we are going to protect it at all costs.”

Enel did not respond immediately to a request for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Green Colonialism’: Biden Admin Clashes With Native American Activists Over Lithium Mine

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

My Response to an AGW Political Scientist thumbnail

My Response to an AGW Political Scientist

By John Droz, Jr.

Climate Change proponents and real Science are often at odds.

Periodically I’ll republish something I wrote prior to my Substack starting, that is currently relevant, In this case, a few years ago I was asked to write a commentary about the appropriateness of industrial wind energy for the Adirondack Park in upstate NY (the largest protected geographic area in continental US). Here it is… That quickly resulted in a well-known local college professor’s (a climate alarmist) attack… My public response to him is below. (FYI, I never heard back from him again.)…

I was rather surprised to see the Adirondack Almanac piece by Professor Curt Stager, for several reasons. For example: a) I have had multiple polite exchanges with Curt in the past, and he never said any of these things directly to me, b) his commentary included multiple misdirections, and c) that he would so openly disavow real Science.

I find item “c” the most surprising and disconcerting. Carefully consider this superior quote from Curt eight years ago (I bolded the most important parts):

Scientists are human beings who reflect a diversity of opinions and attitudes.  Of course, most of us are fed up with this ridiculous situation, so it’s not surprising that you hear from so many who express those concerns.  I’m fed up, too, but I’m also not alone in my preferences for refraining from “aggressive activist stances.”   I do so because I value Science itself more than any individual topic that it addresses.

I consider Science to be one of the most valuable inventions of human civilization, and I recognize how precious and vulnerable to corruption it is as one who believes in objective reality, the fallibility of human perception, and the need for objective methods of seeking truth. I also recognize that public trust in Science itself depends heavily upon trust in the objectivity of those who pursue it.  We must walk a fine line between defending truth and trying to force it on other people, and I personally choose to take a cautious approach in walking that line.

This is a well-phrased, important statement — and I would agree with every bolded word. However, since that time Curt has apparently been radicalized. As his Adirondack Almanac commentary indicates he appears to have abandoned his earlier commitment to his profession, and has proudly become a card-carrying political science activist.

To properly respond to all the monkeyshines in his Adirondack Almanac article would take longer than the space allowed here, so I’ll just address some of them. Hopefully discerning readers can then extrapolate the rest on their own…

What we are discussing here is called “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW). Basically, that is the belief that catastrophic global warming is caused almost exclusively by man-made influences (e.g., burning fossil fuels).

The gist of the problem is that Curt has chosen to impale himself on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he wants us to believe that his opinions about AGW are based on real Science — but on the other hand, he doesn’t want to be burdened by the constraints of following the protocols of real Science!  Put another way, his comments show a clear distinction between genuine science and political science. Consider some examples:

#1 — If two professional scientists have a disagreement, each one politely puts forth the best empirical (i.e., real-world) evidence that they believe supports their case. At no time does one disparage the other’s motivations, past associations, beliefs, mother-in-law, etc. — as those are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If Curt was so confident in the scientific proof of his claims, why would he waste a single word of his space-limited op-ed to deprecate me? That is a political tactic, outside the realm of real Science.

#2 — Curt then inaccurately asserts that the only people competent enough to assess the validity of the AGW matter, are “truly qualified climate scientists.” Whether the AGW hypothesis is true or not rests on the Scientific validity of its proponents’ claims. Any competent scientist can see whether other scientists (in their field or otherwise), have followed Scientific Protocol… Interestingly Curt undermines his own assertion (that AGW is the exclusive realm of climate scientists) by citing “physics” (i.e., my field) as the basis for some of his AGW claims.

#3 — Curt mischaracterizes a Scientific hypothesis by disparagingly calling it “mere guesswork.” Here’s a reasonable definition:

“The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the Scientific Method — the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena. The generation of a hypothesis is a creative process, based on existing scientific knowledge, intuition, or experience. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability.”

OK, now we understand that, here is the really important part: what does it take for a scientific hypothesis to become a scientific theory, the next step up the ladder? According to UC Berkeley:

“Theories, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable…. and has proven itself in thousands of experiments and observational studies.”

However, in this case, the Global Warming promoters have simply decreed that their AGW hypothesis has been elevated to the level of a Scientific theory — but without adhering to the necessary scientific protocol! Such proclamations are the tactics of activists and political scientists — not real scientists.

#4 — Professor Stager knows this very well but is averse to admitting that the AGW matter is a hypothesis — as he does not want to comply with most of the traditional burdensome Scientific methodology. Why not?

Some of the excuses put forward by AGW advocates, are: a) it’s too time-consuming, b) AGW is too complicated to be analyzed by traditional Science, c) AGW is not falsifiable (see above), and d) the traditional science methodology casts significant doubt on the AGW hypothesis.  In other words, Curt is saying let’s skip over all this annoying Science stuff, and cut to the chase. Again, that is the perspective of a political science person: let’s get on to changing policies!

#5 — The AGW hypothesis is almost entirely based on computer models. But computer models are not something magic: they are the results of data plus numerous assumptions by people.

But if AGW is too complicated to be analyzed by traditional Science, how is it that certain individuals are able to accurately decipher what data is pertinent and exactly how it all inter-relates? Rephrased: if accurately assessing the validity and results of AGW is too complicated for traditional Science, then it is also too complicated for computer models. BTW, real scientists focus on empirical data. Political scientists prefer computer models as it is child’s play to manipulate them (without citizens being aware), so that any desired outcome can be generated…

#6 — Unfortunately, Curt did not acknowledge that we have HUGE gaps of knowledge in our understanding of climate.

For example, the AGW matter appears to rest on a very basic equation: the global CO2 balance. On one side are “CO2 Sources” which are either natural or man-made. On the other side are “CO2 Sinks” which are mostly natural. When the Sources exceed the Sinks, we have a resultant net CO2 increase. One of several problems is that as much as 30% of the Sinks side of the equation is not well understood.  How accurate can computer models be when there is such a substantial unknown involved? Real scientists are very clear about exactly what we know and do not know. Political scientists, on the other hand, glaze over the unknowns.

#7 — There are multiple references to “peer-review” in Curt’s commentary. Two comments about those. First, it’s puzzling that Curt fails to inform readers that there are some 2000 peer-reviewed papers that contest his AGW position (e.g., see here). A real scientist objectively presents both sides of any dispute. (Note Curt’s quote about that at the beginning!) A political scientist solely promotes his own agenda, pretending that there is no other reasonable conclusion than theirs.

#8 — Second, the intention of his “peer-review” insertions is to convince the casual reader that Science has put its imprimatur on Curt’s AGW hypothesis. That is not so. What laypeople need to know is that the peer-review process has NOTHING to do with ascertaining the validity of any study’s conclusions. For example, in the peer-review process, NO ONE repeats any experiment done in a study, to verify the results.

To get a better picture of what peer-review is all about, carefully read the statement made by one of the major players in the peer-review process, the editor of the world-renown medical journal, the Lancet:

“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer-review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding.

“Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer-review. We portray peer-review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller.

“But we know that the system of peer-review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

In other words, references to peer-review to support one’s claims are based on the premise that the reader is not educated about peer-review realities. This is a strategy used by political scientists: to take advantage of what citizens don’t understand, to promote their own objectives and policies.

#9 — Along the same line are Curt’s references to “consensus.” Oh dear!  If Curt has irrefutable Science to support his AGW hypothesis, why would he waste time by talking about such unscientific matters as consensus? Look closely at the Scientific Method. Is there anything there about consensus? NO!

What is also indisputable is that there have been numerous cases in the past where the consensus of what scientists believed, was subsequently proven to be wrong. Real scientists are well aware of that reality, so they would never — ever — try to justify their hypothesis by referencing other scientists’ opinions. On the other hand, political science is all about getting a consensus.

#10—Despite his 1300± word commentary, Curt didn’t actually address the primary points I made in my earlier Adirondack Explorer article. Instead, he waxed eloquently on AGW — which was not the topic I was asked to write about. Renewable energy in the Adirondack Park was my assignment. He didn’t say anything about that! Have you ever noticed that when a politician is asked a question they don’t like, they smoothly change the topic? That’s another stark difference between real Science and political science.

#11—Curt’s remarks about skepticism are also interesting. He understands that skepticism is the hallmark of a real scientist — so he makes sure to point out that he once was an AGW skeptic. Although I couldn’t find any AGW skeptical papers he wrote during that time, I’m willing to take his word for it. However, his position is now that he has been satisfied, why isn’t everyone else?  Indeed.

If he had put forth a learned position: a) that followed the conventions of real Science, b) that honestly acknowledged how much we don’t know about AGW, c) without ad hominemsd) without references to such unscientific matters such as consensus, and e) without making false implications about the veracity of peer-review — then we could see that he was making a strong case based on real Science. Instead, we got a political science response, which does not inspire confidence.

#12—It’s quite clear from all this that the AGW issue is not really about CO2. Instead, this is just a convenient vehicle for those who want to radically alter our American way of life — to literally convert us to an agrarian, Marxist society. Don’t take my word for it, but just closely examine the elements (and consequences) of the Green New Deal, which is just a trial balloon for what’s really the agenda being promoted here.

The bottom line is that Curt and other similar advocates, want us to fork over $100± Trillion dollars: a) to accept their AGW hypothesis when they have not bothered to follow traditional Science protocols, and b) to implement “solutions” (like industrial wind energy) that are scientifically unproven.  What could possibly go wrong?

PS — A profoundly important problem that is going on here, is that real Science itself is under attack by anti-American progressives. For example, see this earlier commentary for just one part of what is transpiring.

©2023. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Green Firm That Advised SEC On Proposed Emissions Rule Sold Carbon Credits From Chinese Region Known For Slave Labor thumbnail

Green Firm That Advised SEC On Proposed Emissions Rule Sold Carbon Credits From Chinese Region Known For Slave Labor

By The Daily Caller

The Biden administration’s plan to impose climate disclosure requirements on the financial sector draws on the input of a green consultancy that sold carbon credits derived from China’s Xinjiang province, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review of public documents.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is set to release its final climate disclosure rule in the coming months, and the agency’s proposed rulemaking documents cite the Swiss-based climate consultancy South Pole multiple times. Likewise, the SEC spoke with a high-ranking South Pole employee about the rule after the firm had sold carbon credits generated in a region of China known for forced labor.

South Pole touts itself as “[striving] for a world where businesses, governments and communities make climate action the new normal.” In a November piece, the investigative group Follow the Money reported that South Pole sold carbon offset credits derived from projects in Xinjiang, China, the epicenter of the Chinese Communist Party’s repressive campaign against Uyghur Muslims.

“Given the specious, often clearly fraudulent nature of the carbon credits rubric in general, can anyone be surprised about South Pole’s apparent scam? If our media establishment were doing its job, the carbon credits grift would rank as one of the major scandals of our time,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the American oil and gas industry who now regularly consults and writes about the energy sector, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The fact that the Biden SEC would rely on these apparent grifters so strongly as support for a major, economically destructive regulatory action is unsurprising, and just in keeping with the overall gaslighting character of the Biden regime.”

Biden claims we are on track to achieve our Paris Agreement goal of reducing carbon emissions by 2030:

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 11, 2022

South Pole is cited several times in the SEC’s disclosure proposal, and the company’s director of sustainable finance, Rebecca Self, joined a January 2022 call with SEC staff to discuss the potential costs of reporting climate-related risks and statistics, according to a publicly available SEC memorandum.

South Pole sold carbon offset credits derived from Xinjiang for several years, stopping in 2021, according to Follow the Money. South Pole would buy the credits from their Chinese partner for less than one euro each, and then resold them to clients like Spotify, British Petroleum and the European Youth Parliament for more than four euros apiece.

The carbon market allows companies to buy and sell carbon credits that nominally offset emissions generated in their operations. “Carbon credits are measurable, verifiable emission reductions from certified climate action projects,” according to South Pole’s own definition.

It is important to note that it is unclear whether any of the operations that formed the basis for South Pole’s credits had any exposure to forced Uyghur labor, according to Follow the Money. However, the ubiquity of forced labor in the region during the time that the company was selling the credits certainly raised those risks above typical risk levels seen elsewhere in the world.

Within the first few years after its founding in 2006, the firm identified Xinjiang’s cotton fields as a potential source for carbon credits, according to Follow the Money. The region’s cotton farmers, many of whom are Uyghurs, would typically burn the twigs and sticks created as a harvesting byproduct on the fields, leave them to rot or collect and dump them elsewhere.

Rather than wasting those twigs, South Pole realized that they had potential value as offsets if they could be converted into fuel at a Chinese biomass plant, according to Follow the Money. This realization reportedly became the basis for the firm’s Xinjiang-derived carbon credits. The company has drawn scrutiny for its operations in other parts of the world beyond China as well.

South Pole is alleged to have sold credits derived from its landmark Kariba Forest Protection project in Zimbabwe, despite knowing that the Kariba project may have only actually produced one-third of the offsets the company claimed to the public, according to a separate investigation conducted by Follow the Money.

If the SEC’s March 2022 proposal is finalized in its current form, the SEC would require publicly-traded corporations to disclose climate-related risks to their businesses in financial filings. Additionally, the SEC’s proposal would require companies to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions directly caused by their operations, those generated by the energy and electricity they use to power their operations and indirect emissions produced in companies’ upstream and downstream supply chains.

Scores of congressional Democrats have urged the SEC and the agency’s chairman, Gary Gensler, to swiftly adopt the disclosure standards. However, many corporate interests, including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, have reportedly pushed back against the rule as proposed, and reports have surfaced suggesting that the agency may water down the proposal when it moves to finalize the rules sometime in early 2024 after several delays.

The SEC, South Pole and the White House did not respond immediately to the DCNF’s requests for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Power Grab’: As California Closes In On A Sweeping Emissions Law, Biden’s SEC Could Roll Out Its Own Version

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

DAVID BLACKMON: Biden Admin’s Latest Offshore Lease Proves The Political Class Shouldn’t Make Energy Decisions For Us thumbnail

DAVID BLACKMON: Biden Admin’s Latest Offshore Lease Proves The Political Class Shouldn’t Make Energy Decisions For Us

By The Daily Caller

Barely a week after its representatives committed the United States to a COP28 agreement pledging to “transition away” from fossil fuels – oil, natural gas and coal – the Biden government held its first significant auction of offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico Wednesday. It was not just any old lease sale, mind you, but the most massive one since 2015 with more than 72 million acres up for lease.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) reports that the government collected a total of $382 million in lease bonuses from an array of “big oil” companies, including Chevron, Shell, Hess (soon to become Chevron via merger), Anadarko (already a part of Oxy via a 2019 merger), Equinor and Repsol. Obviously, the Biden administration’s long refusal to hold a real lease sale in the Gulf had resulted in pent-up demand for new development acreage among the large, well-capitalized companies that are capable of investing billions of dollars in exploration for new deep-sea resources.

In a statement, Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), emphasized the importance of maintaining an active program for offshore lease sales in U.S. waters. “Today signifies a critical point in American energy policy,” Milito said. “The U.S. offshore oil and gas industry is stepping up and making the investments vital to enhance our energy, economic, and national security for decades to come. However, the offshore industry’s commitment to American energy security and affordability comes at a time of significant and unnecessary uncertainty. Without Congressional intervention, this is the final lease sale until at least 2025.”

Of course, 2025 will be the year in which the next presidential administration begins. If it is a continuation of the Biden presidency – or that of another Democrat – then we can anticipate the new 5-year plan for offshore leasing introduced on December 15 will reign. That plan envisions the holding of just three offshore lease sales from 2024 through 2029. That is fewer sales than Barack Obama’s administration held in any single year, and a tiny fraction of the 47 sales envisioned by the 5-year plan adopted during the Trump administration.

Milito and NOIA clearly view the Biden plan as wholly inadequate to sustain a vital and healthy offshore industry into the future. “In our forward-thinking industry, securing new lease blocks is vital for exploring and developing resources crucial to the U.S. economy,” Milito said. “Additional offshore acreage is necessary to sustain and expand energy production in a region known for among the lowest carbon intensity barrels globally.”

That last point about carbon intensity should be a major consideration in any U.S. administration that is concerned about emissions. Despite all the grand fantasies discussed at global conferences like COP28 and the annual World Economic Forum meetings, the reality is that the world is going to need more and more oil and natural gas in the coming decades to sustain a modern society. That oil can either be produced in places like the U.S., with its strong regulatory system limiting carbon and methane emissions, or in places like the west coast of Africa or other developing regions with comparatively primitive regulatory structures.

Sadly, though, the politics surrounding climate alarmism, in which well-funded climate activist groups pour billions into Democratic political campaigns, dictate that any Democratic presidency must assume a hostile public posture toward industries that produce or use fossil fuels. Wednesday’s lease sale in fact happened only thanks to a series of court orders forcing the Biden Interior Department’s hand. Otherwise, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, herself a lifelong opponent of oil and gas drilling, would have without any doubt continued to find ways to delay it through at least the end of Biden’s first term.

The just-adopted plan to hold just three additional sales across the coming six years is absurd on its face and would inevitably result in a shrinking U.S. offshore energy sector. “Without annual opportunities for investment here in the U.S., the investment necessary to fuel the U.S. and global economies will simply shift to other parts of the world, including regions with potentially lower environmental standards and higher emissions,” Milito said.

This is all about hardcore partisan politics, and it exemplifies one more reason why the political class is the very worst class in any society to be put in charge of making energy-related decisions for the rest of us.



David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLE:DAVID BLACKMON: This Agency Is Scrambling To Adjust Its Absurd ‘Peak Oil’ Predictions


Glad to see Republicans waking up to go on offense. Now they have to actually deliver.

— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) December 24, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

A Higher Education Embarrassment: Brown University Offshore Wind Report is a Disgrace thumbnail

A Higher Education Embarrassment: Brown University Offshore Wind Report is a Disgrace

By John Droz, Jr.

Last week I received an email from an editor of a national media outlet, asking for my comments on a Brown University Report regarding offshore wind energy. I found that this was put out by CDL self-described as: “The Climate and Development Lab is a student-faculty think tank informing a more just, equitable and effective climate change policy.”

Note: even though I was “prominently mentioned” in this report (16 times!), no one from CDL/Brown bothered to contact me to verify what they wrote about me was accurate. Not surprisingly, most of it was irrelevantmisleading, or false. Their likely defense is that they just copied what they found on the Internet. Clearly, double-checking would be an unreasonable burden. Worse it might reveal that some of their underlying, unscientific narrative might crumble.

Not surprisingly, this report is rife with errors of omission and commission — way too many to go into in a commentary of this length. To keep this digestible, let’s just briefly look at the assignment itself…

It appears that the Brown Pied Piper professor instructed the children to do something like this:

  1. Get the names of all the main US people opposed to offshore wind.
  2. Guess who they connect with regarding offshore wind.
  3. Speculate about any funding involved, and where it may come from.
  4. Cast aspersions willy-nilly, to try to undermine their credibility.

The first question is: let’s say the neophytes do a competent job fulfilling the oracle’s commands: What then? What meaningful bearing on the offshore wind energy issue would this have? None. Zip. Nada.

A second question is: did the high priest direct his acolytes to do a similar report about offshore wind proponents? Not surprisingly, there is no evidence of that. Does that sound “just and equitable”?

I’m only a physicist, but if these were my students, an assignment I’d give them on this topic would be:

  1. Get the names of all the main US people opposed to offshore wind.
  2. Carefully document each of their objections to offshore wind (e.g., mine are here).
  3. Equitably assess the merits of each of their objections.
  4. Comprehensively and objectively determine whether offshore wind is a net societal benefit.

Now the students would be: a) producing a report that has real value, b) getting educated about a national energy issue, and c) learning how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Such an assignment is designed to undermine cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias — rather than reinforce these (i.e., what this “report” does).

Put another way, in my recommendation the students would actually be doing Critical Thinking about the offshore wind issue — whereas there was zero Critical Thinking in the CDL/Brown assignment they were subjected to.

As readers know I’m extremely concerned that our education system is annually producing millions of non-critical thinking lemmings (e.g., see my Education Report). This sad story is just one of many solid pieces of evidence that this is continuing to happen.

P.S. — I sent the Big Cheese and his entourage a polite but pointed email about this travesty. So far no response.

©2023. John Droz, Jr.. All rights reserved.