Day: July 26, 2025

Highest World Blobocrat Court decrees Perfect Climate is a “human right” — funnels money to Friends, Lawyers and Bankers

A court at the top of the UN Faraway Tree has proclaimed that rich countries have an obligation to “protect the climate system”. 

A courtroom scene featuring a zombie judge presiding over a group of zombie jurors and lawyers, highlighting a surreal and satirical representation of a trial.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

A surreal illustration featuring a large tree with a classical building on top, surrounded by clouds, and a helicopter with a UN logo flying nearby.

It’s a great day for lawyers

A court at the top of the UN Faraway Tree has proclaimed that rich countries have an obligation to “protect the climate system”. 

In full Blob-propaganda mode, the BBC rushed to tell us how this was a win for the people, in “the world’s highest court”.  The BBC-Blob doesn’t mention that the poor people of Britain (and the free world) will pay, and most of the poor islanders cheering in the South Pacific will get nothing. As the BBC says, dripping with Marxist-medicine: ““This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard.”  When they say “us” they mean “the Blob”. When they say “frontline community” they mean the Blob rent-a-crowd protestors. They don’t mean frontline farmers, or small business owners or Christians.

The ruling is “non-binding” which means any sensible government will ignore it, just like the USA, France, Israel and India have in the past, and even Australia did in 2002. China pretty much ignores it every year. But this ruling is very useful for patsy governments who want to do something anyway (like give back the Chagos Islands for no good reason). It will suit sell-out Prime Ministers who want to score a UN job “après politics”. It will suit China because no one will sue them for fear of sparking a trade war, even though it’s the worst “climate troll” on Earth, instead, it will just sell more useless wind turbines, batteries and solar panels to patsy nations that use this symbolic ruling to pretend they must do more “weather-changing” on their national grid (or what’s left of it).

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change

“Tonight, I’ll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through – our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally.

The ICJ is considered the world’s highest court, and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week.

The UK put in a tepid effort to defend its own citizens from the latest UN phishing scam:

But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed. On Wednesday the court rejected that argument.

Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

It is all about the money — ka-ching times a trillion:

Previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change – or $16 million per hour.

The only solution to the perpetual money funnel is to leave these unelected, unaudited, power hungry black hole institutions who serve no one but themselves and their Blob compatriots. It’s time to exit the UN. Turn off the taps. Axe the funding stream. This starts by embarrassing patsy governments who don’t serve their citizens and the schmuck journalists who serve the Blob and not their country.

The whole world could potentially sue everyone else

It’s a game of ideological roulette with unlimited plaintiffs.

The Pacific Islanders can apparently sue us for warming the world, even if their islands are not sinking (and the sun probably caused the warming). But what if Russia, Poland or the ‘akistans decide to sue The West for trying to cool the climate which could harm their farmers and reduce their crops? What if France sued everyone else for not building nuclear plants. Or Africa sued the West for not giving them nuclear plants? Or Indonesia sued us for cutting back CO2 and reducing their rice yields. The list only ends when Donald Trump puts a tariff on nations that still feed the UN.

We can feel the One World Government breathing in our ears. The ICJ threatens sovereignty — the unelected masters are making up their own rules. The money they eke out will be quietly siphoned through electricity bills and taxes in such a way that no one will be quite sure who paid what and when.

Who decides what “Protecting the Climate” means? Whoever that is, they are the Kings that want to rule over us.

The theatre of the absurd

As the BBC says, without so much as two minutes of analysis, “Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuel”.  As if.

The country that has generated the most carbon dioxide, bar none, is the US, and it withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction from the International Court of Justice 40 years ago, and the ICJ can’t hear a case against the US unless the US consents. (That was Nicaragua v. United States of 1986). In 2005, the US just ignored the ICJ ruling that the US violated the Vienna Convention. (Even Australia withdrew from ICJ jurisdiction over maritime boundary disputes  in 2002 — just before East Timor was about to sue it over the Timor Gap oil field.)

The number two country on the global emitters list, — that has historically burned the most coal on Earth — is China, but good luck getting them to pay. They will, however, offer a Belt and Road climate loan, paid back in harbors, airports and railway lines or just pro-China votes in the UN.

So, who is this legislative theatre aimed at? The only suckers left — Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Tide Running Out on Climatism

The devastating Texas flooding over the July 4 weekend was a natural disaster of immense proportions. The lives lost brought unthinkable heartache for families. Especially difficult to fathom is that so many victims were young children.

Adding to the grief was the irresponsible blame game that almost immediately arose in the wake of the tragedy. Many on the left couldn’t wait to point fingers at Republicans, from President Donald Trump to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

A silhouetted figure in a suit stands with their back towards a smoky doorway, creating a dramatic and contemplative atmosphere.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

A stranded boat labeled 'Climate Crisis Inc.' sitting on a sandy shore, with a man in sunglasses and a beard in the foreground.

Gary Abernathy explains how momentum is shifting away from climatists in his Empowering America article The climate change cult is encountering more resistance these days.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The devastating Texas flooding over the July 4 weekend was a natural disaster of immense proportions. The lives lost brought unthinkable heartache for families. Especially difficult to fathom is that so many victims were young children.

Adding to the grief was the irresponsible blame game that almost immediately arose in the wake of the tragedy. Many on the left couldn’t wait to point fingers at Republicans, from President Donald Trump to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

A political cartoon depicting a reporter in a boat interviewing a distressed mother holding two young children amid floodwaters, with a sign saying 'STOP' in the background and the phrase 'What do you think of Trump shamelessly exploiting this tragedy to advance his agenda?'

Of course, the climate cult again demonized fossil fuels, global warming and other predictable villains from the days of yore (or Gore). The group Climate Central could only contain itself until July 8 before rushing out to hold a press briefing to reiterate its dogma that “climate change drives more extreme weather,” and that the Texas storms were “made more likely and powerful in a warmer climate.”

Infographic illustrating Eastern European alpine glacier history during the Holocene period, showing tree line elevations, glacier extent, and summer temperatures over thousands of years.

Leftwing climate groups often accuse anyone who disagrees as being a “climate denier.” But few actually deny that the climate indeed changes, often dramatically. The archeological record makes clear that the earth has warmed, cooled, experienced flooding and undergone a number of other climate-related upheavals through the centuries, long before human activity could be faulted. But groups like Climate Central identify the manmade practice of burning fossil fuels as the modern culprit.

An illustration showing a person in a suit manipulating strings attached to a television, which displays a group of masked individuals on a panel. The text above reads 'OF COURSE ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE' and below it states 'WHEN YOU CENSOR THE ONES WHO DON'T.'

Any brave soul who dares to challenge the extent to which carbon emissions and greenhouse gases impact climate change is shouted down by the cult and buried under an avalanche of “scholarly” papers produced by “the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.”

The good news is that the same day that Climate Central was regurgitating its tried-and-true rhetoric, the New York Times reported (in what it likely considered an expose), “The Energy Department has hired at least three scientists who are well-known for their rejection of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, according to records reviewed by The New York Times.”

Bar chart depicting the expectations of Americans regarding climate change sacrifices in their lifetimes, detailing the percentages of major and minor sacrifices expected across different age groups and political affiliations.

What seemed frightening to the Times and the indoctrinated left comes as welcome relief for millions of other Americans who believe that the war on affordable and reliable energy sources is based more on politics than science.

An image featuring a quote on climate change statistics, showing interviewees engaging in conversation.

The extent to which fewer Americans are being successfully propagandized is made clear by recent polling. On July 11, CNN data analyst Harry Enten told viewers that as early as 1989, 35 percent of Americans were “greatly worried” about climate change, a number that jumped to 46 percent by 2020. But, as Enten admitted with some astonishment, only 40 percent of Americans currently feel “greatly worried” about climate change. The reason for growing public skepticism on climate change is probably because most Americans have wised up to how data can be easily manipulated for political ends.

A chart showing public opinion on climate policies, indicating the perceived impact on the U.S. economy among U.S. adults, Republicans, and Democrats.

We know from experience it’s not hard to convince “experts” to sign on to a “consensus” opinion to add gravitas to the cause de jour. Back in 2020, more than 50 former intelligence officials famously signed onto a letter claiming that emails found on Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” That was not true, and it was later discovered that former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell had drafted the letter to help Joe Biden’s campaign. Everyone else just signed on, their devotion to a particular election outcome apparently outweighing the lack of evidence backing their claim.

A political cartoon depicting a researcher feeling overwhelmed by media attention while working on climate research, with a caption referencing global warming.

Similarly, individual treatises on climate science aren’t authored by hundreds of scientists. Each one is written by, at most, a handful of researchers who then circulate their work and ask others to sign on – giving activists the fodder they need to claim that “the overwhelming majority” of the scientific community is in agreement. In fact, scientific papers being published as authoritative when, in fact, they are not is a growing problem.

Falling papers in a dimly lit office space, with stacks of documents on desks and computers in the background.

“Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud,” according to a 2024 report in The Guardian.

Fortunately, there has always been a segment of the scientific community willing to stand up to the mob and interpret climate data independently. The three scientists hired by the Energy Department and targeted by the Times for expressing skepticism on manmade climate change – physicist Steven E. Koonin, atmospheric scientist John Christy, and meteorologist Roy Spencer – are among the brave.

A quote by Steven Koonin discussing the moral implications of climate change perceptions, overlayed on an abstract green background with geometric shapes.

In decades past, a key tenet of science was to question everything, on the theory that raising doubts and concerns was the best path to the truth. As Dr. Koonin wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay, “Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future.”

Instead of natural disasters serving as excuses to launch attacks and place blame using the same tired, lockstep rhetoric, here’s hoping for a new age of climate enlightenment, led by scientists, journalists and others with the curiosity – and courage – to question everything.

A high-speed image of a tunnel with a bright light at the end, illustrating motion and perspective.
That’s light at the end of the tunnel, hopefully not an oncoming train.

Small modular reactors are a game-changer for Africa and the world

For South Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, where electricity deficits stifle growth, small modular reactors (SMRs) offer a promising solution.

A close-up view of a small modular reactor (SMR) design, showcasing its intricate metallic structure and glowing elements in a dark, futuristic environment.

From CFACT

By Ronald Stein

A digital illustration of an atom emitting light, surrounded by rays, representing energy and atomic structure.

For South Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, where electricity deficits stifle growth, small modular reactors (SMRs) offer a promising solution.

With the Trump administration poised to reshape global electricity policy, the U.S. has a unique opportunity to lead the West in supporting Africa’s electricity-driven progress through SMRs. The Trump administration should lead Western nations in abandoning hypocritical restrictions and thus become a collaborator in advancing African electricity security.

The Electricity Crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa faces a dire electricity crisis. Over 600 million people — more than 40% of the continent’s population — lack access to electricity, a figure projected to rise to 657 million by 2030 without intervention. This deficit hampers industrialization, healthcare, and education, trapping millions in poverty. South Africa, with its Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, is the only country in Africa with operational nuclear power; yet even here, electricity reliability remains a challenge.

The West has built its prosperity on an abundant supply chain of products and transportation fuels made from fossil fuels and abundant electricity. Now, through the Marshall Plan, it pressures Africa to adopt renewable-heavy policies that prioritize climate goals over developmental reality. Solar and wind can only generate intermittent electricity and are costly in regions with limited grid infrastructure, which are unable to deliver the consistent baseload power required for industrial growth.

Forcing Africa into a renewable-only path risks perpetuating electricity poverty, a form of hypocrisy that is bullying the world’s poor.

Small Modular Reactors: A Game-Changer for Africa

Enter small modular reactors, a technology ideally suited to address Africa’s electricity challenges. Unlike traditional large-scale nuclear plants, which require significant upfront costs and extensive water for cooling, SMRs are compact, scalable, and designed for flexibility. With outputs typically ranging from 10 to 300 MW, SMRs can power small towns, mining operations, or urban centers, making them perfect for Africa’s diverse and often remote landscapes.

South Africa has emerged as a global leader in SMR development, particularly through its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and its successor, the HTMR-100. Initiated in the 1990s, the PBMR uses helium gas for cooling, eliminating the need for large water bodies — a critical advantage in arid regions. The HTMR-100, developed privately after the PBMR project stalled in 2010 due to financial constraints, is designed for rapid deployment and affordability, with off-the-shelf components reducing costs. A single unit can power a large town or mining complex, and its fuel can be safely stockpiled for years, ensuring reliability even in remote areas.

Recent developments signal a revival. South Africa’s energy minister has committed to a 2,500 MW nuclear build program, explicitly endorsing SMRs.

The Nuclear Renaissance and U.S. Leadership

The global resurgence of nuclear power, spurred by the Trump administration’s recent executive orders, aligns with Africa’s needs. By addressing regulatory, supply, and siting challenges, these orders have ignited a nuclear stock rally. With companies like Nano Nuclear, Oklo, and NuScale leading the charge, as U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum declared, “Mark this day on your calendar. This is going to turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation.” Whether this marks a true nuclear renaissance or a speculative bubble, the market’s optimism, backed by bipartisan support, signals a shift toward nuclear power as a reliable, clean electricity source.

For Africa, Generation IV SMRs offer a transformative opportunity. Their modular design enables factory-based construction and on-site assembly, resulting in reduced costs and deployment times compared to traditional reactors. In countries with nuclear experience like South Africa, SMRs could be deployed in as little as about five years. Technologies like the HTMR-100, with passive safety features, enhance safety and minimize risks, addressing concerns about radiation and proliferation.

The Role of the Trump Administration

The Trump administration’s pro-nuclear stance presents a golden opportunity. By investing in SMR projects, the U.S. can support Africa’s electricity goals while fostering economic partnerships. It’s time to reject Western bullying and prioritize Africa’s development, countering its reliance on foreign powers like Russia and China, which dominate nuclear exports to Africa.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relies on the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, established in the 1950s, to regulate radiation exposure, assuming all doses linearly increase cancer risk. However, this model is criticized for ignoring biological evidence of DNA repair, apoptosis, and adaptive responses that mitigate low-dose radiation effects, potentially overestimating harm from nuclear power plant releases by orders of magnitude.

Studies, including those from high-background radiation areas and animal models, suggest low doses may stimulate protective responses (hormesis). The LNT model’s adoption, influenced by historical anti-nuclear biases rather than low-dose data, drives overly conservative regulations, inflating costs and public fear.

The NRC should urgently review LNT against threshold or hormesis models, integrating modern biological and epidemiological evidence, to ensure regulations reflect current science and balance safety with practicality.

Seizing the Moment

Africa’s right to develop is undeniable, and SMRs are a critical tool to achieve it. South Africa’s leadership in SMR technology, coupled with growing interest across Sub-Saharan Africa, signals a path to electricity security and economic growth. The Trump administration can lead the West in supporting this vision, dismantling restrictive green mandates and investing in Africa’s nuclear future. Denying Africa access to electricity is not justice — it’s a betrayal. By championing SMRs, the U.S. can help power Africa’s rise, ensuring prosperity for the continent and stability for the world. The time to act is now.

This article originally appeared at America Out Loud

California Dems Reportedly Scrambling To Find Buyer For Refinery After Running Owner Out Of Town

California Democrats are reportedly rushing to find a buyer for a refinery scheduled to shut down in 2026 as a potential gas crisis looms over the state, according to Reuters.

A man in a suit passionately speaking at a podium with a sign behind him that reads 'No gas and oil,' with an oil rig visible in the background.

From Watts Up With That?

THE DAILY CALLER

Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter

California Democrats are reportedly rushing to find a buyer for a refinery scheduled to shut down in 2026 as a potential gas crisis looms over the state, according to Reuters.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) is reportedly actively seeking buyers to stop the upcoming closure of the Valero refinery in Benicia, California, according to three people familiar with the matter that spoke to Reuters. Democrat officials are now reportedly scrambling to keep the refinery operating in California after enforcing stringent regulations that have helped prompt refineries to close across the state for years.

“CEC is engaging with market players to explore pathways for the continued operation of in-state refineries,” the agency told Reuters. (RELATED: Gas Crisis Looms Over California As Dems Continue To Impose Crippling Regs)

CEC did not specifically confirm that it is looking for a buyer to Reuters, but did say that it is working to ensure that the refinery stays open. Valero announced its Benicia, California, refinery closure in April, and Phillips 66 refinery is also scheduled to shut down by the end of 2025.

A spokesperson for Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom pointed the DCNF to Newsom’s recent comments about working with oil refiners and producers to help keep fuel supplies steady, as well as his April letter to CEC urging them to “redouble” efforts to cooperate with refiners.

Golden State residents already pay some of the highest prices at the pump across the U.S., though two major refineries scheduled for closure and strict regulations may spike gas costs to as high as $8 per gallon as soon as next year, according to one study from the University of Southern California.

Oil refineries have been closing in California for years, and the state hasn’t seen a new major refinery built in decades, according to the CEC. Programs like California’s “cap-and-trade” program combined with strict low-carbon fuel standards are contributing to regulatory pressures that are driving refineries out of the state, industry experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Critics like Republican California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones also note that stringent regulations imposed by Democrats have pressured refineries to leave the state. The refinery closures, in tandem with more regulations going into effect, have led some California officials to worry about a potential gas crisis in the state.

CEC and Valero did respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

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 licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Climate Change Is Reducing, Not Increasing Food Costs, Mainstream Media

A flurry of mainstream media reports, from Bloomberg, The Guardian, Financial Times, and CNN, among other outlets, claim that climate change is causing rising food prices “worldwide,” based on a single new study. This is false. Bad weather has always impacted crop production, and there is no actual evidence that extreme weather is increasing. Globalization of media coverage is simply making it easier to hear about bad weather elsewhere in the world, meanwhile crop production and yields globally continue to set records – a fact the same media outlets largely ignore.

A vibrant agricultural field with rows of green and purple lettuce, set against a clear sky and distant trees.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A flurry of mainstream media reports, from Bloomberg, The Guardian, Financial Times, and CNN, among other outlets, claim that climate change is causing rising food prices “worldwide,” based on a single new study. This is false. Bad weather has always impacted crop production, and there is no actual evidence that extreme weather is increasing. Globalization of media coverage is simply making it easier to hear about bad weather elsewhere in the world, meanwhile crop production and yields globally continue to set records – a fact the same media outlets largely ignore.

Focusing on the coverage by Bloomberg, in an article titled “How Climate Change Is Raising Your Grocery Bill,” Bloomberg writers report on a study from the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) and the European Central Bank, which claims price jumps in certain food products are due to “extreme weather they say is linked to climate change.”

Bloomberg claims that consumers around the world “say they are feeling the effects of climate change on their grocery bills, making food unaffordable for some and posing a challenge for central bankers trying to tame inflation.” If true at all, this almost certainly the effect of media coverage like Bloomberg’s insisting that climate change is responsible, instead of observational evidence of crop production.

It is worth noting that the study uses the term “unprecedented” eight times in the mere four pages of content. To justify their use of the term unprecedented to describe global weather events in the last few years they reference ERA5 surface temperature data going back to 1940, and the standardized precipitation index from CRU going back to 1901. The reason why this is non-scientific and misleading will become clear when we go over the weather events they claim were so “unprecedented.”

Bloomberg discussed a few of the weather events mentioned in the study linking them to increases in the price for specific crops. They first highlighted increases in lettuce and vegetable prices in the United States, driven by droughts in California and Arizona, the former of which Bloomberg claims saw the “driest three-year period ever recorded.” Also mentioned was hurricane Ian. The problem, of course, is that California’s drought was anything but unprecedented. As discussed in the post “Mega-droughts and Mega-floods in the West All Occurred Well Before ‘climate change’ Was Blamed for Every Weather Event,”  historical data and proxies show that California has experienced far more widespread and severe periods of drought in the past, some of which lasted as long as two hundred years.

In Asia, Bloomberg says a heatwave impacted South Korean cabbage production. While UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data indicate that cabbage production has been slowly declining after a massive spike in the 1970s, yields have remained stable or increased since 2000. This suggests that economic considerations or political decisions made about the relative benefits of growing cabbage versus other crops that could be grown, or uses the land could be put too, rather than climate, are responsible for changes in production.

Australia also saw high lettuce costs due to flooding in the eastern part of the country in recent years, but the year Bloomberg and the study highlight, 2022, was not unprecedented as they implied. In fact, 2022 was only the sixth “wettest” year on available Australian rainfall records, the wettest year on record was in 1950.

Bar chart illustrating annual rainfall in Eastern Australia from 1900 to 2022, with 2022 marked as the sixth wettest year.
Figure 1: Australian rainfall records, chart from Jennifer Marohasy: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/01/fear-flooding-forecasting-australias-2022-official-rainfall-statistics/

Bloomberg goes on to explain how the study allegedly “found that heat, drought and floods were occurring at an increased intensity and frequency,” which is at odds with available data and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 6th assessment report, which though it claims an increase in extreme heat has been detected, finds no emergence of increased flooding or drought in the current historical period.

In short, Bloomberg, and the other mainstream media outlets hyping the BSC report, failed to do any fact checking, failed to examine crop trends, and illegitimately linked individual weather events to long-term climate change, despite such events being common in history and there being no discernable trend in an increase in such events amid the slight warming that has occurred in recent years. To be clear, weather is not climate and, despite what unscientific attribution studies claims, no specific weather event can be tied to long-term climate change.

In short, none of the weather events Bloomberg referred to as unprecedented was in fact unique or even rare historically.

Concerning the crops, BSC and the media focuses on the most, lettuce and cabbage, data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization show that between 1993 and 2023 (the most recent 30-year period of climate change for which we have available data):

  • Lettuce (and chicory – the FAO combines them) production grew approximately 112 percent;
  • Lettuce and chicory yields increased by about 4 percent;
  • Cabbage production expanded by nearly 75 percent;
  • And cabbage yield grew by more than 37 percent. (see the graph below)
Line graph showing global production and yield trends for cabbage and lettuce from 1994 to 2022, with distinct colored lines representing world production and yield for each crop.

Bloomberg does briefly concede that other factors, like El Niño, a totally natural phenomenon, played a role in weather in 2023 and 2024, impacting certain crops. The outlet also begrudgingly admits that “food price shocks typically turn out to be short-term in nature, because high prices incentivize more production, which brings prices back down,” though they try to say that coffee and cattle are exceptions to this rule. Although Bloomberg reports that coffee futures are high, there is no evidence that climate change is actually damaging global coffee production, as explained in Climate Realism posts here, here, and here.

Bloomberg ends with a warning from the study authors, claiming that “slashing greenhouse gas emissions and containing global warming will be key to reducing food price inflation risks,” but this ignores another key aspect of food costs. They are also impacted by the cost to produce food, like when governments increase the price farmers pay for fossil fuel derived pesticides and fertilizers or try to restrict their use. Fossil fuel derived chemicals increase yields with less labor and using much less land. Take a look at Sri Lanka for a good example of what happens when climate action is prioritized over food production.

Never before has it been so easy for the media to report on various weather disasters and crop failures globally, and this certainly has an impact on peoples’ perceptions as well as the ability for studies to try to draw connections that aren’t really backed by data. This Bloomberg piece is nothing more than climate fearmongering; taking disconnected crop shortages from around the world from localized weather events and trying to blame them on climate change, when the truth is that there have always been crops failing somewhere in the world at any given time.

How the Trump AI Action Plan will Wreck Green Energy

“… ensures an uninterrupted and affordable supply of power …” – just not possible with renewables.

A glowing blue representation of 'AI' surrounded by a circular, futuristic design, symbolizing technology and innovation.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by  Eric Worrall

“… ensures an uninterrupted and affordable supply of power …” – just not possible with renewables.

White House Unveils America’s AI Action Plan

The White House

July 23, 2025

The White House today released “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan”, in accordance with President Trump’s January executive order on Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI. Winning the AI race will usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people.

The Plan identifies over 90 Federal policy actions across three pillars – Accelerating Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security – that the Trump Administration will take in the coming weeks and months.

Key policies in the AI Action Plan include:

  • Exporting American AI: The Commerce and State Departments will partner with industry to deliver secure, full-stack AI export packages – including hardware, models, software, applications, and standards – to America’s friends and allies around the world.
  • Promoting Rapid Buildout of Data Centers: Expediting and modernizing permits for data centers and semiconductor fabs, as well as creating new national initiatives to increase high-demand occupations like electricians and HVAC technicians.
  • Enabling Innovation and Adoption: Removing onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.
  • Upholding Free Speech in Frontier Models: Updating Federal procurement guidelines to ensure that the government only contracts with frontier large language model developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias.

“America’s AI Action Plan charts a decisive course to cement U.S. dominance in artificial intelligence. President Trump has prioritized AI as a cornerstone of American innovation, powering a new age of American leadership in science, technology, and global influence. This plan galvanizes Federal efforts to turbocharge our innovation capacity, build cutting-edge infrastructure, and lead globally, ensuring that American workers and families thrive in the AI era. We are moving with urgency to make this vision a reality,” said White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios.

“Artificial intelligence is a revolutionary technology with the potential to transform the global economy and alter the balance of power in the world. To remain the leading economic and military power, the United States must win the AI race. Recognizing this, President Trump directed us to produce this Action Plan. To win the AI race, the U.S. must lead in innovation, infrastructure, and global partnerships. At the same time, we must center American workers and avoid Orwellian uses of AI. This Action Plan provides a roadmap for doing that,” said AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks.

“Winning the AI Race is non-negotiable. America must continue to be the dominant force in artificial intelligence to promote prosperity and protect our economic and national security. President Trump recognized this at the beginning of his administration and took decisive action by commissioning this AI Action Plan. These clear-cut policy goals set expectations for the Federal Government to ensure America sets the technological gold standard worldwide, and that the world continues to run on American technology,” said Secretary of State and Acting National Security Advisor Marco Rubio.

Learn more at AI.Gov.Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai-action-plan/

Looking at the referenced AI Action Plan, the following caught my eye.

…

Develop a Grid to Match the Pace of AI Innovation

The U.S. electric grid is one of the largest and most complex machines on Earth. It, too, will need to be upgraded to support data centers and other energy-intensive industries of the future. The power grid is the lifeblood of the modern economy and a cornerstone of national security, but it is facing a confluence of challenges that demand strategic foresight and decisive action. Escalating demand driven by electrification and the technological advancements of AI are increasing pressures on the grid. The United States must develop a comprehensive strategy to enhance and expand the power grid designed not just to weather these challenges, but to ensure the gridøs continued strength and capacity for future growth. Recommended Policy Actions

ø Stabilize the grid of today as much as possible. This initial phase acknowledges the need to safeguard existing assets and ensures an uninterrupted and affordable supply of power. The United States must prevent the premature decommissioning of critical power generation resources and explore innovative ways to harness existing capacity, such as leveraging extant backup power sources to bolster grid reliability during peak demand. A key element of this stabilization is to ensure every corner of the electric grid is in compliance with nationwide standards for resource adequacy and sufficient power generation capacity is consistently available across the country.

ø Optimize existing grid resources as much as possible. This involves implementing strategies to enhance the efficiency and performance of the transmission system. The United States must explore solutions like advanced grid management technologies and upgrades to power lines that can increase the amount of electricity transmitted along existing routes. Furthermore, the United States should investigate new and novel ways for large power consumers to manage their power consumption during critical grid periods to enhance reliability and unlock additional power on the system.

ø Prioritize the interconnection of reliable, dispatchable power sources as quickly as possible and embrace new energy generation sources at the technological frontier (e.g., enhanced geothermal, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion). Reform power markets to align financial incentives with the goal of grid stability, ensuring that investment in power generation reflects the systemøs needs.

ø Create a strategic blueprint for navigating the complex energy landscape of the 21st century. By stabilizing the grid of today, optimizing existing grid resources, and growing the grid for the future, the United States can rise to the challenge of winning the AI race while also delivering a reliable and affordable power grid for all Americans.

…Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf

If I’ve understood this correctly, every future federal approval for energy supply will be assessed on whether it advances the USA towards the goal of a reliable, dispatchable grid fit for ensuring US AI dominance.

Obviously renewable suppliers can try to play in this game by ensuring they co-install several days’ worth of battery backup, to lay claim to being dispatchable, but unless battery prices drop substantially it is difficult to imagine such efforts being affordable.