Environment Archives - LIBERTY FIRST

Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If you’d like to be added to (or unsubscribe from) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g., PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from 2023, 2024, 2025 & 2026. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all fifteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.

Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.

CFACT joins the Fix the EPA Veto Coalition

June 1, 2026

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

CFACT has officially joined the newly formed Fix the EPA Veto Coalition, a broad alliance pressing the Trump administration to issue a strong executive order reining in the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to retroactively sabotage major energy, mining, and infrastructure projects.

At the heart of the issue is Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act — a little-known provision that gives the EPA power to veto dredge-and-fill permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, even years after projects have been approved, funded, and built. While used sparingly in the past, this authority has become a potent political weapon capable of destroying billions in investment and thousands of jobs with the stroke of a pen.

A History of Weaponized Regulation

The precedent that alarms industry most came during the Obama years, when the EPA retroactively revoked a lawfully issued permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia — four years after approval. The Biden administration later took the tactic even further, using 404(c) preemptively to kill Alaska’s massive Pebble Mine project before it could even break ground.

This regulatory whiplash creates devastating uncertainty for developers who spend years and hundreds of millions navigating the federal permitting maze, only to have the rug pulled out once they’ve finally secured approval.

Billions at Stake

The stakes could hardly be higher. Under the Trump administration, critical projects now moving forward — including the Alaska natural gas pipeline, Arctic energy development, new LNG terminals, Minnesota’s Duluth Mining Complex, and strategic critical mineral mines across the country — all remain vulnerable to future EPA vetoes.

Every year, the Army Corps of Engineers issues between 60,000 and 75,000 Section 404 permits, supporting roughly $200 billion in economic activity. The looming threat of a retroactive veto hangs like a sword over all of them.

A Clear Solution

The Fix the EPA Veto Coalition is urging the White House to issue an executive order modeled on the Reducing Permitting Uncertainty Act, legislation sponsored by Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN) that has twice passed the House but stalled in the Senate.

The proposed order would:

Establish clear timelines for when veto authority can be used
Prohibit retroactive and preemptive vetoes
Restore consistency and predictability to the review process
Protect projects that already hold permits or are actively moving through permitting

Melanie Collette, CFACT Senior Policy Analyst, emphasized why her organization is proud to join the fight:

“This is exactly the kind of regulatory fix CFACT exists to fight for. The 404(c) veto has been used as a political weapon to kill projects long after investors, workers, and communities have already committed. That uncertainty is a real drag on domestic energy and mineral development, and we want to see the administration close this loophole before the next administration has the chance to exploit it.”

Myron Ebell, Coalition Senior Advisor and leader of Trump’s first EPA transition team, put it more bluntly:

“Going through years of permitting only to have the permit pulled after the fact is a massive obstacle to investing in America. It’s not the kind of regulatory environment a country serious about energy dominance can afford.”

The coalition is calling on the Trump administration to act decisively and deliver the regulatory certainty American industry needs to build, produce, and lead.

AUTHOR

Melanie Collette

For more information or to join the effort, visit fixtheepaveto.org or email info@fixtheepaveto.org.

Zeldin to Congress: EPA Putting Affordability Ahead of Alarmism

April 30, 2026

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Lee Zeldin is the best administrator EPA has ever had.

By a long shot!

In America, we get so caught up in the daily ups and downs of politics that we often forget that policy is the point.

Watch Zeldin lay out EPA’s bold reform agenda at a congressional budget hearing. Zeldin masterfully stood up to radical leftist Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (she of the purple hair), as well.

WATCH: Lee Zeldin testifies on EPA’s 2027 budget before House Appropriations subcommittee

Zeldin posted on X:

“The Trump EPA has ENDED the Green New Scam. We proudly rescinded what has been referred to as the “Holy Grail” for the “world is about to end” climate change zealots, the 2009 Obama EPA Endangerment Finding, without apology or regret. $1.3 trillion in savings. $2,400 more affordable new vehicles. The end of the start/stop climate participation trophy. All while protecting our environment.”

I was honored to introduce Administrator Zeldin at the 16th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C.

Zeldin proclaimed “vindication” for all of us who labored to correct the record on climate, energy, and the environment for so many years.

EPA has an important mission. Ensuring clean air, water, and a sparkling environment for this and future generations is essential.

The Left should never have been permitted to co-opt the EPA for its anti-capitalist agenda of government economic control.

Thank you, Lee Zeldin, for getting EPA back on track.

For nature and people too.

Climate Lawfare Suffers Major Defeat at the Supreme Court

April 18, 2026

By The Daily Signal

The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a bizarre effort at climate lawfare, which aimed to penalize Chevron for its role in boosting the U.S. war effort against the Nazis and Imperial Japan in World War II.

The ruling is good news for sanity, but it also sets an important precedent for the Left’s ongoing climate lawfare efforts. You see, climate alarmist lawyers have sought to weaponize state laws against oil and gas companies, and the ruling in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish delivers a knockout punch to at least part of their nefarious strategy.

While the case turns on a technicality, that technicality means a great deal to the environmentalist trial lawyers seeking to make a buck and undermine the oil industry.

As Justice Clarence Thomas—a President George H.W. Bush appointee—notes in his opinion for the unanimous court, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and its fellow parishes filed no fewer than 42 state-court lawsuits in 2013 against oil and gas companies under a 1978 state law for alleged violations in the 1940s.

Many of the oil companies successfully appealed to have the cases removed from state court to federal court, because the companies had been acting under a federal officer “of or relating to any act under color of such office.” Yet lower courts had rejected Chevron’s efforts to move the case out of state court, so Thomas had to painstakingly explain that the phrase “relating to” can mean “to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.”

Of course, this isn’t really about the meaning of the word “relate.” It’s all about whether judges who support the climate alarmist narrative can side with climate lawfare in the teeth of both the law’s text and common sense.

It does not make sense to use a Louisiana law to penalize an energy company in Louisiana state court for actions a previous version of that company took in service of a federal objective on the orders of the federal government.

This move from state to federal court may seem insignificant, but it is not. The oil and gas industry engages in interstate commerce, and its operations largely fall under federal law. Climate alarmist politicians in some states seek to pass laws restricting the industry’s operations, and climate alarmist lawyers seek to weaponize such laws against the industry as a whole, based on the idea that the human burning of fossil fuels is bringing about some indeterminate apocalypse.

Other Forms of Climate Lawfare

Suing oil companies for helping America defeat the Nazis is one thing, but the issue of whether state or federal law prevails in climate cases remains quite relevant, and it’s the centerpiece of another Supreme Court case.

Boulder, Colorado, sued Suncor Energy, claiming that its key business model of burning fossil fuels for energy has caused concrete harm under state law. The Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder’s case to proceed, so Suncor appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Think about the implications of this for a second. Boulder claims that the burning of fossil fuels has caused concrete harm—even though it is unclear exactly how fossil fuels impact the global climate and most climate alarmist predictions have proven false. The city attributes specific weather harms not to God or the planet’s ecosystem but to a specific company, and then claims to know what is unknowable—how much that specific company’s efforts contributed to Boulder’s weather.

In doing so, Boulder takes upon itself the ability to regulate an industry that doesn’t just operate across state lines, but is vital to the global economic system.

But it gets worse. David Bookbinder, who served as part of the legal team representing Boulder at lower stages of litigation, described his climate lawfare efforts as “an indirect carbon tax.”

Tellingly, he added, “I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those… this is a rather, somewhat convoluted way, to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

In other words, this climate lawfare is a conscious effort to circumvent the voters.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Suncor’s case against Boulder, and the Plaquemines Parish ruling suggests the court may decide that state law is incapable of handling the regulation of a global industry.

Other Implications

Friday’s ruling also shores up America’s standing in the world. As Steven Bucci, a 30-year Army Special Forces veteran, explained last year, a ruling in favor of Plaquemines Parish would have undermined U.S. national security. State courts shouldn’t be able to second-guess federal wartime decisions, and if they could, that might lead companies to reconsider assisting in America’s defense.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court made the right decision, and it did so on the merits of the law, such that all eight justices who considered it—Justice Samuel Alito recused himself—agreed that Plaquemines Parish’s case is baseless.

Here’s hoping this represents a step toward blocking climate lawfare going forward. Suncor v. Boulder will be the real test.

Seizing the Working Class Opportunity in AI Data Centers

April 11, 2026

By Sam Raus

nginx

Can You Imagine…

April 10, 2026

By Karen Schoen

How many Americans have to die before we realize that the policies of the last century don’t work and most are based on computer models? Our policies are based on a “What if” scenario, not the reality of finding a solution for a real world problem.

What do I mean by that? Have you noticed that almost every policy of major importance never takes place in real time? Instead, it addresses the problem with a solution that computer models are used for “What If” projections into the future. Their solutions are for later, in the future, with hypothetical problems that never seem to materialize. Why? So the end justifies the means.

New policies based on hypothetical problems, effective years in the future, are often meaningless but expensive and are filled with government overreach. When a new administration takes over, the new president is now saddled with a solution that doesn’t fit today, does not address what is happening today and is often void of science.

A perfect example of this is what happened in the EPA. I remember when I first started studying Agenda 21 and first heard about climate change. I thought how stupid these climatologists are using models with data that may not even exist. This group of people can’t even tell you which direction a hurricane is headed because Mother Nature is unpredictable. They never take into consideration the fact that humans will adjust to a new atmosphere and create different tools to cope with it. Instead, they give us policies that say you must do this today or the planet will die in 5 years, in 10 years, in 20 years. And then when those years appear, the glaciers haven’t melted, the sea doesn’t rise and Florida is not yet under water. Despite this, kids are taught to blame their parents for something that will never even happen!

Instead of helping, their policies destroy jobs, destroy economic growth and cause more harm than good. Nothing is more evident than:

Wildfires that go on every year in California that the Californians are never prepared for.
The logging industry destroyed, forcing Americans to buy expensive wood from Canada. Instead of clearing the forests in America this policy also raised the price of construction.
The fishing industry was closed when a model, created by NOAA on a computer, said there would be no more Red Snapper or Lobster. This resulted in loss of fishing villages and recreational charters. No more fishing industry. Now, look at the price of the fish that we are forced to buy from overseas mud ponds. No telling what’s in them.

When I look at our economy as a whole, I realize that the people putting these policies in place are not scientists or doctors and certainly not professionals. Most did not care about the harm their policies would bring. Were they in it for wealth and power? They do not care about the American people. They do not care about America and they certainly do not care about the future. The bureaucrats and legislators making these laws are in it for today, for today’s power for today’s money and for today’s control. They don’t care about the future, they don’t care about the children and they certainly don’t care about America.

Fortunately, President Trump does care and attended school at a time when, I believe, science was still taught. I remember teaching science. I remember talking about breathing and how important carbon dioxide was to human life. I remember talking about the variety of seasons and how each season was important, but we must prepare for its differences. Unfortunately, the children of today have no memory of anything, except how to work their handheld devices or play games on them.

Thank you, President Trump, for getting us out of those insane UN NGO’s – that do nothing except steal our money!! Thank you, President Trump, for giving Lee Zeldon the nod to change the EPA’s insane green policies with a green failure future.

My guest this week is Sterling Burnett, from the Heartland Institute. Sterling is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. The new EPA policies will bring sanity back to a department that has gone off the rails. To understand how these new policies, Chevron Deference Case and the Rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Repeal of Vehicle GHG Standards, help bring economic prosperity to Americans. Here is a brief summary of each.

Chevron Deference:

Chevron deference is a legal principle guiding courts on agency interpretations of statutes. It applies when a statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Established by the Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). Courts first determine if the statute is ambiguous before deferring to the agency’s expertise. It emphasizes the role of administrative agencies in interpreting laws within their jurisdiction. Critics argue it can lead to excessive agency power and reduced judicial oversight.

As of March 2026, the most prominent and recent “new” EPA regulations (or major actions) under the current administration focus heavily on deregulation, particularly rolling back prior greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate-related rules from previous administrations. The standout development is the February 2026 final rule described by the EPA as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” Key EPA Action: Rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Repeal of Vehicle GHG Standards (Finalized February 12, 2026)

Rescinds the 2009 Endangerment Finding: This Obama-era determination concluded that GHG emissions (like CO₂) from motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare, providing the legal basis under Clean Air Act Section 202(a) for federal GHG regulation.
Repeals all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and engines (covering model years 2012–2027 and beyond).
Eliminates related requirements: No more obligations for manufacturers to measure, report, certify, or comply with GHG standards; removes compliance programs, credit provisions (including off-cycle credits like incentives for start-stop features), and reporting.
Scope and impact — Applies only to GHG emissions (does not affect standards for traditional pollutants like NOx, particulates). Aims to restore consumer choice, lower vehicle costs, and reduce regulatory burdens on the auto industry.
Claimed benefits — EPA estimates over $1.3 trillion in cost savings for Americans (e.g., cheaper vehicles, reduced compliance costs, lower living expenses via affordable trucks).
Rationale — EPA argues the Clean Air Act does not authorize GHG regulation from vehicles without clearer congressional intent, citing Supreme Court decisions (e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, Loper Bright).

It is up to us to conduct oversight to make sure the new rules are followed. This is only one piece of making America Great Again. It is up to us to help President Trump get the Save America Act done. YOUR job is to call your Senator and any other Senator that voted NO. Call them often!! Make sure they know you will not vote for them if they can’t fight to Save America. Is America worth saving? It is up to us.

A Breath of Fresh Air: Trump Admin Axes Outrageous Obama Climate Regs

April 9, 2026

By Catherine Salgado

nginx

Climate Activists ‘Rooting for Iran to do more destruction to energy infrastructure & keep the Strait blocked’ so they can resurrect net zero

April 6, 2026

By Marc Morano from Climate Depot

The Bottom Line – Fox Business Network – Broadcast March 31, 2026

Marc Morano criticizes IEA’s fuel consumption reduction guidance as ‘climate agenda’ –

ClimateDepot.com executive editor Marc Morano discusses the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) new guidance on reducing fuel consumption amid the war in the Middle East on ‘The Bottom Line.’

Because maybe I got this wrong. But I was looking at that, IEA stuff. These guidelines, and there might have been guidelines for individuals, but it looked like they were also putting out guidance for governments to consider, is where your concern is.

Marc Morano: To paraphrase the words of Al Pacino, just when you think we’re out of the climate agenda, they pull us back in.

You have not only the IEA, which is, by the way, the International Energy Agency, but it has been hijacked by climate alarmists — for years, they’ve been all in on net zero — promoting this, you have also a Reuters news analysis, and climate activists. They are treating the Iran war as though it’s a version of the Green New Deal. They’re excited. Every time Iran blows up someone’s energy infrastructure, they look at this as an opportunity to literally do the exact same things they were proposing for the green new deal for net zero and COVID, with stay-at-home orders.

What’s happening here is they’re using the same tactics of fear, their fear-mongering about an energy crisis that hasn’t even happened yet. And they’re turning that into, ‘we have to proactively turn our whole economy toward net zero like we’ve been saying for decades with the climate agenda.’

All these activists are rooting for Iran to do more destruction to energy infrastructure and keep the Strait blocked so that we can go after fossil fuels. To be clear, Reuters said the Iran war was a ‘fossil fuel killer’, and that we can now use this to move off of fossil fuels. They’re just that excited about this whole war for that reason. …

Higher energy prices are not a bug of the climate agenda, they are a feature. So any hike in energy prices is exactly what they always wanted. So you can see why they’re giddy at the moment.

Donald Trump has destroyed — and I mean, obliterated the green agenda in a little over a year. They are now just regrouping and trying to use the Iran war to resurrect themselves.

Background:

IEA energy plan sparks concerns over ‘Covid Lockdowns 2.0’ – Plans for ‘reducing fuel consumption during global oil shocks’

Reuters Cheers Iran War as Fossil Fuel Killer – ‘Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence’

International Energy Agency calls for driving slower & flying less to weather energy crisis during Iran war disruptions – To help with the ‘largest supply disruption in the history of the oil market’

Analysis: ‘The oil crisis is exactly what the net zero brigade wants’ –

‘Energy scarcity is the main way of achieving the ultimate objective of the green agenda’

MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER: ‘Decades Of Climate Alarmism Behind Energy Crisis’ – ‘Biden blocked liquified natural gas export terminals, leaving global economy vulnerable to war-time disruption’

The Strait of Hormuz Crisis Shows the World Still Runs on Fossil Fuels

Kevin O’Leary: Iran war has ‘proven to the world that oil still matters — not a some, it matters A LOT!’ – ‘We didn’t buy any insurance investing billions of dollars in wind & solar’

IEA energy plan sparks concerns over ‘Covid Lockdowns 2.0’ – Plans for ‘reducing fuel consumption during global oil shocks’

Battery Plant Explosions in California Raise Public Health Concerns

March 26, 2026

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Lithium burns so hot and bright they use it to make flares.

Once they get going, lithium fires can be almost impossible to put out.

Witness the spate of car carrier fires that tend to burn themselves out when firefighting efforts fail.

When hurricanes struck Florida, homeowners evacuated to safety in their long-range, fast-fill-up, internal combustion cars, abandoning their EVs in their garages. When tidal surge submerged the EVs’ electrical systems, they went up uncontrollably and took the house with them.

CFACT senior fellow Bonner Cohen reports at CFACT.org about devastating fires at California battery storage plants, including the destruction of California’s Moss Landing facility. Taxpayers subsidized Moss Landing to the tune of $500 million, hoping it would back up intermittent offshore wind turbines.

Bonner reports that in addition to being incredibly difficult to extinguish, these battery fires release huge amounts of toxic metals into the air. Alongside the threat to human health from direct exposure to airborne microparticles of heavy metals, levels of cobalt in the agricultural region’s soils near Moss Landing are 100 to 1,000 times above normal, Hogan points out. “And they will linger there for a century or more,” he added.

The fire risk of electric vehicles and battery plants is all too real.

We are unprepared.

Battery Plant Explosions in California Raise Public Health Concerns

Over a year after a massive explosion at the world’s largest lithium-ion battery storage plant in Monterey County, California, ignited an inferno that burned for days, Golden State officials plan to build more such “clean-energy” facilities, ignoring the risk battery plants pose to public health and safety.

The blast sent a plume of black smoke laden with tons of heavy metals, including cobalt and hydrogen fluoride, hundreds of feet into the air, prompting authorities to evacuate nearby residents. While the cause of the explosions at Vistra Energy’s Moss Landing battery storage facility on Jan. 16, 2025, is still under investigation, scientists testing the air and water near the site are troubled by what they have found.

“Metals from the Moss Landing battery fire still linger in the region’s sediments and food webs,” notes Ivano W. Aiello, professor of marine geology at San Jose State University. “These metals bioaccumulate, building up through the food chain: The metals in marsh soils can be taken up by worms and small invertebrates, which are eaten by fish, crabs or shorebirds, and eventually by top predators such as sea otters or harbor seals.”

It was the fourth, and by far largest, fire to break out since 2020 at the Moss Landing plant and the adjacent battery energy storage facility owned by Pacific Gas & Electric. Moss Landing is 77 miles south of San Francisco on the shore of Monterey Bay, at the mouth of Elkhorn Slough.

Battery energy storage systems are an essential element to efforts – still enthusiastically pursued in California – to transition from fossil fuels to intermittent wind and solar power. Excess energy generated during windy or sunny conditions is released to the grid when wind and solar power cease producing adequate amounts of electricity. This requires lots of backup storage plants each with thousands of batteries, and therein resides the risk of fires.

While the unique design of the Moss Landing facility may have made it susceptible to thermal runaway, the eight fires that broke out last year at California battery storage plants show the potential for future blazes is widespread, says physicist C. Michael Hogan, Ph. D., founder of Earth Metrics Inc., an environmental think tank.

Hogan recently told the “California Insider” podcast that Sacramento, which has allowed over 200 battery storage plants to be built, is greenlighting the construction of at least 100 more such facilities. But the Golden State is doing this “at a massive scale” without “fully understanding the consequences “ of its action. “These [plants] are an experiment,” he noted. In the case of the Moss Landing explosion, toxic jagged cobalt microparticles were dispersed into the air. Once inhaled, these cobalt microparticles – “the width of a human hair” – can interfere with a person’s alveoli, where the lungs and the blood exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide during the process of breathing in and breathing out.

Alongside the threat to human health from direct exposure to airborne microparticles of heavy metals, levels of cobalt in the agricultural region’s soils near Moss Landing are 100 to 1,000 times above normal, Hogan points out. “And they will linger there for a century or more,” he added.

The Moss Landing facility, which was destroyed in last year’s blast, was subsidized by California taxpayers to the tune of $500 million, Hogan noted, to provide backup power for the state’s planned construction of floating offshore wind turbines.

Offshore wind “plays a key role in in the state’s goal to achieve 100% clean energy by 2045,” a California Offshore Wind Fact Sheet proclaims. To that end, the state is working on a “strategic plan to develop up to 25 gigawatts of offshore wind energy in federal waters off the California coast.” This “will require more than 1,600 floating offshore wind turbines” which will be “as tall as the Eiffel Tower.” The more floating offshore wind turbines that are installed, the more onshore battery energy storage plants will be needed, exposing nearby communities to the heightened risk of future explosions.

California is one of two dozen blue states suing the Trump Environmental Protection Agency, which last month revoked the Obama-era “endangerment finding,” according to which greenhouse gases emitted from fossil fuels endanger public health. The endangerment finding served to justify, among other things, Biden administration regulations phasing out gasoline-powered cars and banning the construction of new liquid natural gas (LNG) export terminals. Both policies have been reversed in Trump’s second term.

In his March 20 announcement of California’s lawsuit, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said of the Trump policies, “They want to make pollution great again.” He failed to mention the pollution caused by his own “clean energy.”

AUTHOR

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior policy advisor at National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.

Energy Independence Makes All The Difference

March 18, 2026

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

With the conflict in Iran causing temporary restrictions on oil exports from the Persian Gulf, America and the world are truly fortunate that the world’s number one petroleum producer is none other than the United States of America!

In fact, figures compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration reveal that America now produces more than twice as many barrels of “total petroleum liquids” when compared to any other nation.

Saudi Arabia produces 11.13 million barrels per day.
Russia 10.75 million
Canada 5.76 million
The United States? 22.91 million barrels per day!

That’s a fracking miracle!

The U.S. accounts for a full 22% of the world’s petroleum production of just over 100 million barrels per day.

No wonder the anti-American Left is so virulently anti-oil!

The United States produces more petroleum than we consume.

Watch CFACT’s Marc Morano explain that American capacity is so strong that we are now able to mitigate the impacts of war, or anything else, on the price of oil for the entire world. Marc describes American energy production as the “key buffer against soaring prices.”

WATCH: U.S. oil boom blunts price shock

Ask anyone old enough to have waited in long lines to fill up their tank during the 1970s Arab oil embargo what energy dependence was truly like.

In times of conflict, energy independence makes all the difference.

For nature and people too.

Trump Admin Orders Pipeline Restart in California Despite Newsom Opposition

March 17, 2026

By The Daily Signal

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stated during a “Meet The Press” interview Sunday that the U.S. is taking several actions—including increasing oil production in deep blue California—to mitigate rising fuel costs due to the conflict in Iran.

After the military strikes of Operation Epic Fury began Feb. 28, Iran sought to block U.S. transport vessels from passing though the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway separating the country from the Gulf States through which an estimated 20% of the world’s oil demand usually flows. The reduction in shipping volume has led to the surge of oil prices in the following weeks.

“We have done many, many actions to mitigate that price rise,” Wright told host Kristen Welker during his appearance on her show. “You saw the announcement of a coordinated release of 400 million barrels of oil with over 30 nations of the world participating in that. We’ve had allies in the Middle East that moved oil overseas before the conflict started.”

“Heck, we just announced yesterday bringing on a meaningful amount of oil production in the state of California from offshore that California has fought foolishly to prevent new American oil to go into their own state,” the Trump administration energy secretary continued. “And we said, ‘Enough is enough,’ and we’ve got new oil production coming on in California. So lots of actions we’re taking to mitigate this price rise.”

Wright’s department on Friday ordered Sable Offshore Corp., an oil company based in Texas, to restart a pipeline system in California. The move was made “to address supply disruption risks caused by California policies that have left the region and U.S. military forces dependent on foreign oil,” a Friday press release from the Department of Energy (DOE) reads.

“California once supplied nearly 40 percent of U.S. oil production, but decades of radical state policies targeting reliable energy sources have driven a decline in domestic output while fuel demand remains among the highest in the nation,” the DOE press release states. “Today, more than 60 percent of the oil refined in California comes from overseas, with a significant share traveling through the Strait of Hormuz—presenting serious national security threats.”

Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a loud critic of the oil and gas industry and staunch supporter of so-called “green” energy policies, blasted the move by the DOE as an “attempt to illegally restart a pipeline whose operators are facing criminal charges and prohibited by multiple court orders from restarting.”

“California will not stand by while the Trump administration attempts to sacrifice our coastal communities, our environment, and our $51 billion coastal economy,” the governor and rumored 2028 presidential candidate said in a Friday statement.

Also during the interview, Wright told Welker he thinks the conflict with Iran ending in a few weeks is “the likely time frame.”

“The price of a barrel of oil closed above $103 on Friday. And the Iranians are warning of prices hitting $200 a barrel. Mr. Secretary, should Americans be bracing for—should they be worried that this war will actually drive the price of oil above $200 a barrel?” Welker asked Wright.

The energy secretary immediately took issue that the NBC News host cited projections by the Islamic theocracy.

“So Iran for 47 years has called the United States ‘the great Satan,’” he said. “So because they call us ‘the great Satan—I don’t think we are the great Satan; in fact, clearly we’re not—so I don’t listen much to Iranian projections of what’s going to happen.”

“So, that’s a no? So, that’s a no?” Welker jumped in.

“But there is disruption to the flow in a very important waterway,” the secretary continued, referring to the Strait of Hormuz. “And depending upon the timing and the manner in which this conflict comes to an end, we’re going to see some elevated pricing until we get there.”

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

Anthony Iafrate

Anthony Iafrate is an associate editor for the Daily Caller News Foundation focusing on politics, elections, and Capitol Hill.

Trump Orders Oil Tanker Insurance Support, Says Navy Could Escort Ships in Gulf

US Allies Rebuff Trump’s Request for Support in Strait of Hormuz

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Standing Your Ground: 5 Questions for the ‘Anti-America’ Crowd

March 9, 2026

By The Editors

nginx

Climate “Science” vs Dietary “Science”

March 3, 2026

By John Droz, Jr.

Critically Thinking about the parallels

My last two commentaries (here and here) have been about the Climate issue. This will be a guest post on this same topic, by my friend Dr. Tom Sheahen…

Dear Colleagues:

Recently, a friend gave me a book entitled “The Big Fat Surprise,” about the importance of fat in everyone’s diet. It was written in 2014, and describes the many ups & downs of fat over the past century — the changing food guidelines from the government, the campaign against saturated fat, trans fat, polyunsaturated fat, etc., that rose to ascendancy at various intervals.

The very recent change in “the food pyramid” reflects the fact that fat-in-your-diet has now been rehabilitated.

However, the reason I write is because of the remarkable parallels between the trajectory of national diet guidance and the trajectory of climate change beliefs. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

“The hypothesis [against saturated fat] became immortalized in the mammoth institutions of public health. And the normally self-correcting mechanism of science, which involved constantly challenging one’s own beliefs, was disabled. While good science should be ruled by skepticism and self-doubt, the field of nutrition has instead been shaped by passions verging on zealotry. And the whole system by which ideas are canonized as fact seems to have failed us.

Once ideas about fat and cholesterol were adopted by official institutions, even prominent experts in the field found it nearly impossible to challenge them. One of the 20th century’s most revered nutrition scientists, …, discovered this thirty years ago, when, on a panel for the National Academy of Sciences, he suggested loosening the restrictions on dietary fat.

‘We were jumped on!’ he said. “People would spit on us! It’s hard to imagine now, the heat of the passion. It was just like we had desecrated the American flag. They were so angry that we were going against the suggestions of the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health.’

This kind of reaction met all experts who criticized the prevailing view on dietary fat, effectively silencing any opposition. Researchers who persisted in their challenges found themselves cut off from grants, unable to rise in their professional societies, without invitation to serve on expert panels. Their influences were extinguished and their viewpoints lost. As a result, for many years, the public has been presented with the appearance of a uniform scientific consensus on the subject of fat, especially saturated fat, but this outward unanimity was only made possible because opposing views were pushed aside. ”

You’ll recognize the exact same trajectory in the case of climate science. WE are the dissenters from orthodoxy who have been suppressed and denigrated.

It ought to be of some consolation that the tide has turned, the climate orthodoxy has been proven wrong (by scientific measurements over decades, similar to the case of nutrition & diet). Just as now there is a new “food pyramid” the includes fat, hopefully someday there will be a correct understanding of the role of CO2.

However, note that “The Big Fat Surprise” was published in 2014, and the revised food pyramid came out in 2025. We’re facing a backlog of several decades of indoctrination of school children (who grow up to be teachers and indoctrinate the next generation). It won’t happen quickly.

Dr. Tom Sheahen (MIT)

I concur with what Tom is saying. Further, his warning that it will take years to fix the harm done by the Left and ignorance applies to the K-12 Science Standards (NGGS) in spades. We do not have another day to waste!

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

The Fracking Miracle: Markets, Not Mandates, Are Saving the Environment

March 2, 2026

By The Editors

nginx

Critically Thinking about Climate Change — Part 2

February 27, 2026

By John Droz, Jr.

My last words of wisdom concerned Critical Thinkers asking probing questions about contentious matters (like immigration). As an example, I started by asking WHAT is the core position of climate alarmists?

Let’s continue by considering two additional basic questions concerning climate change…

Next we should ask HOW alarmists are able sell an unscientific opinion to citizens, legislators, businesses, and the military that will cost everyone very large sums of money, and eventually their very freedom.

The alarmists’ success is based on them effectively utilizing these facts:

that 95+% of the public are technically challenged,
that 95+% of the public are not Critical Thinkers,
that fear is a very effective motivator,
Critical Thinkers who spoke out against the unscientificness of the alarmist position are ridiculed and silenced, and
the mainstream media continuously parroting unscientific climate propaganda eventually convinces those in #1 and #2 that there must be truth in these alarmist assertions.

Asking WHY the alarmists are doing this is a third logical question.

I try to assume the best about people — until proven otherwise. In this case, I start by assuming that alarmist scientists are legitimately concerned about the global warming issue. Further, one of their top solutions is that we should spend trillions of dollars on industrial wind turbines.

HOWEVER, there is zero scientific proof that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2 (e.g., see here)! So, when alarmist scientists propose a nonsensical solution, it says that either: a) they are not competent in this area, or b) they have some other agenda.

Not surprisingly (as the same objectives are underlying almost every politically contentious matter), the answer to WHY is: greed and power.

Let’s look at just one other recent worldwide matter for some parallels: the “COVID-19 pandemic.” For any Critical Thinkers, it was obvious that although prevention and treatment of COVID-19 were scientific issues, there was almost nothing scientific about the COVID-19 preventions or treatments!

For example, the incessant mask requirements may seem to make sense to most laypeople, but scientifically, the verdict about masks for COVID is unequivocal: they are not effective plus they are a serious health risk.

Further, MANDATING that citizens must take unscientific preventions or treatments — or lose their job, etc. — was (should have been) an eye-opening revelation as to how far we have departed from genuine Science, and how tenuous our foundational freedoms have become.

For example, here is a sample table I put together about the major COVID-19 early treatment options. The unscientificness of the medical establishment’s unwavering endorsements — especially compared to OTC options — is beyond stunning.

In this regard, real Science says that the government-supported Paxlovid treatment has an effectiveness of 17±%, while the inexpensive OTC treatment of Vitamin D has an effectiveness of 56±%!!! When has Dr. Fauci ever publicized anything remotely like that?

What’s even worse is that none of the guilty parties here have yet to acknowledge their deviation from real Science.

My last example is that I put together another unique table comparing the COVID situation to the Climate Change matter. The parallels are mind-bending — yet almost no one else on the planet has pointed this out!

Watch this new, short video which is a good summary of the situation:

America was founded on solid democratic and Judeo-Christian principles. It has successfully survived and flourished due to those. However, those who are driven by greed and power could care less.

Critical Thinking citizens need to keep the Big Picture in mind when they are deluged with the self-serving claims of anti-Americans.