Day: November 6, 2025

Bill Gates Is Suddenly Skeptical: Pivots from Climate Doom and Renewables

It’s the beginning of the end of the renewables fantasy, but there will be no apology — no admission they were wrong, or that millions of people have suffered because of climate sorcery.

Bill Gates and Melinda Gates speaking at the World Economic Forum, discussing global issues.

From ClimateRealism

Bill Gates looking contemplative with the word 'Nevermind' overlaid in bold red font.

Editor’s Note: The media has been awash with stories about Bill Gates’ apparent about face on climate change. The New York Times, CBS, CNN, the Associated Press, and dozens of other outlets discussed a lengthy blog post Gates wrote in which he said climate change will not destroy civilization or lead to the extinction of humanity, and that there are more direct and pressing issues like alleviating poverty. The Heartland Institute has made this same point for three decades.

Most of the media are appalled with Gates’ public pivot on the existential danger climate change poses. As explored in the guest post below, Gates still believes climate change is occurring, caused by humans, and is dangerous. But he now also seemingly admits what readers of Climate Realism have long known: it is not a crisis, it won’t destroy society, and other problems facing humanity are much more serious, and solvable, with rapid economic growth and innovation. Jo Nova explains where Gates’ views have shifted and where they haven’t, which also explains what he now gets right and still gets wrong. 

Guest post by Jo Nova 

Yet another climate change heavyweight abandons ship

It’s the beginning of the end of the renewables fantasy, but there will be no apology — no admission they were wrong, or that millions of people have suffered because of climate sorcery.

Watch as the billionaire who lectured us from private jets, pivots into word salad. Now he says we still have to solve climate change (whatever that means), but the doomsday view is wrong, and that awful carbon pollution “will not be the end of civilization.” He’s suddenly turned into a kind of Bjorn Lomborg. Forget mitigation, say hello to adaptation.

On the cusp of COP30 in Brazil, Bill Gates has launched a life raft for his reputation — a 17-page memo called Three tough truths about climate.

Bill Gates can see what’s coming (a reckoning for the renewables debacle), and he is repositioning himself so he doesn’t go down with the ship. Indeed, he’s almost writing an escape plan for the whole Blob. In a nutshell, he’s admitting between the lines that wind and solar power are unaffordable, and since climate change won’t actually be that catastrophic, everyone should calm down while we invent technologies, and in the mean time, get back to stopping people from starving. Wouldn’t you know, he says “Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.” (That’s Truth #3 ).

What he’s not saying is that he and his friends wasted untold billions (maybe trillions) of dollars of our money installing wind and solar panels that aren’t very good. He is not connecting those dots.

We still need that breakthrough mythical technology to save us from the climate monster.

Three tough truths about climate

By Bill Gates

…though climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.

Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.

He’s still painting himself as a savior, of course:

If given a choice between eradicating malaria and a tenth of a degree increase in warming, Gates told reporters, “I’ll let the temperature go up 0.1 degree to get rid of malaria. People don’t understand the suffering that exists today.” –– AP News

Now, at long last, he says the first priority should be to prevent suffering in the here and now. This is  very noble, but where were you Bill for the past 10 years when people in Africa needed coal plants — you were telling them to invest in wind and solar.

Compare this to Bill Gates in 2021:

“The countries that build great zero-carbon companies and industries will be the ones that lead the global economy in the coming decades.”

–Bill Gates, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster

Bill Gates set up Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV) “the future of energy” in 2015 and often put in a star performance at the UN COP Junkets.

Only a few short years ago, climate change was going to be awful in our lifetimes according to Bill:

    • Unless we move fast toward zero, bad things (and probably many of them) will happen well within most people’s lifetime, and very bad things will happen within a generation.”
    • “In other words, by mid-century, climate change could be just as deadly as COVID-19, and by 2100 it could be five times as deadly.”

Between the lines, Gates is admitting the wind and solar experiments were a waste of money.

The tough truth he dances around is that we don’t have a realistic way to get to Net Zero yet, we still need those breakthroughs. This is a polite way of saying that we wasted lots of money, and made life tougher for poor people.

Sometimes the world acts as if any effort to fight climate change is as worthwhile as any other. As a result, less-effective projects are diverting money and attention from efforts that will have more impact on the human condition: namely, making it affordable to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions and reducing extreme poverty with improvements in agriculture and health.

What he doesn’t say is that the UN doesn’t care less about the poor, it’s just a vehicle for dictators and corporations to profit or sabotage competitors. That’s why they are jumping up and down over the best managed reef in the world, and not spending more time talking about the murder of Christians in Nigeria.

The big shift away from climate dogma

This is the Big-pivot away from Climate Doom, the obsession with a tiny 0.14°C of warming (per decade) and wind and solar subsidy harvesting:

Truth #1: Climate Change is a serious problem but it won’t be the end of civilization.

Truth #2: Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate.

Truth #3: Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.

Expect The Blob to spend less time talking about temperatures and 1.5 degrees of warming, and more time talking about quality of life suddenly.

The New York Times makes out that it is a bit controversial, but really, we’ll solve climate change faster if we stop harping on about the prophesies of doom.  Optimism, they now say,  is the most effective way to motivate people.

By David Gelles, The New York Times

In a memo, the Microsoft co-founder warned against a “doomsday outlook” and appears to have shifted some of his views about climate change.

Politics aside, Mr. Callahan said Mr. Gates’s change in messaging was in line with studies that have shown that alarmist rhetoric about climate change is not the most effective way to motivate people to take action. “The result of a lot of research is that it’s much better to lean into the optimism than the pessimism,” Mr. Callahan said.

This is the man who wrote How to Avoid a Climate Disaster only four years ago. In it  “Gates explains why the world must completely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions (“getting to zero”), rather than simply reducing them.” — Wikipedia

Feel the Quickening: the green retreat is accelerating

The Democrats are openly saying they should not even talk about climate change if they want to get elected, and Tony Blair is trying to dig the UK Labor government out of a very big hole, telling them to abandon Net Zero targets.  Gates is yet another to hop on the sort-a-skeptical bandwagon.

As I said before, the Australian conservatives could end up being the last people on Earth still endorsing Net Zero.

Originally posted at the JoNova blog, here. Reposted with permission.

Europe’s Last-Minute Climate Scramble: Brussels Waters Down Its 2040 Target Just in Time for COP30

According to Reuters, the European Union has finally agreed on a watered-down climate target for 2040 after a long night of political wrangling in Brussels. The headline might read like a victory for European unity, but the story beneath it tells us something quite different: Europe’s climate ambitions are fraying at the edges, caught between utopian promises and economic realities.

Exterior view of the European Commission building in Brussels, featuring multiple EU flags in front against a clear blue sky.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

According to Reuters, the European Union has finally agreed on a watered-down climate target for 2040 after a long night of political wrangling in Brussels. The headline might read like a victory for European unity, but the story beneath it tells us something quite different: Europe’s climate ambitions are fraying at the edges, caught between utopian promises and economic realities.

Press conference in Brussels with Lars Aagaard, Danish Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities, and European Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra discussing the weakened climate target for 2040 on November 5, 2025.
EU agrees weakened climate target in final-hour deal for COP30

The deal, struck just before the COP30 summit in Brazil, calls for a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. But that number, bold as it sounds, hides a series of escape hatches. Ministers agreed that up to 5% of the reduction could be achieved by purchasing foreign carbon credits — paying other countries to cut emissions on Europe’s behalf. That means European industries will only need to achieve an actual 85% domestic reduction.

In a particularly revealing twist, the EU also agreed to “consider” using another 5% worth of international credits in the future, which would effectively soften the target even more. For all practical purposes, the “90%” headline figure is now little more than political theater, designed to placate activists and bureaucrats alike while leaving ample room for economic pragmatism.

As Danish Climate Minister Lars Aagaard put it, “Setting a climate target is not just picking a number, it is a political decision with far-reaching consequences for the continent.” He added that the goal had to be “reached in a way that preserves competitiveness, social balance, and security.” Those are not the words of a man leading a crusade against carbon — they are the words of a politician trying to keep factories open and voters fed.

Reuters reports that some nations, like Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary, resisted the 2040 target altogether, citing concerns about the damage to industrial competitiveness. Their opposition was ultimately overruled, but the dissent underscores an important point: the European project of “leading the world” on climate action is now colliding with the hard wall of economic reality.

In another concession, the launch of a new EU carbon market was delayed until 2028 — a move clearly meant to soothe anxious member states wary of rising costs. And it’s not hard to see why. European manufacturers are already facing high energy prices, supply chain disruptions, and competition from cheaper Chinese imports and U.S. goods. Piling on another layer of climate regulation was bound to push some of them over the edge.

Originally, the European Commission had proposed a stricter framework: a 90% domestic emissions cut with only 3% flexibility through carbon credits. Its own scientific advisers had warned against buying foreign CO₂ offsets, arguing that such schemes “divert much-needed investments away from European industries.” But those warnings were ignored once the political negotiations began.

Countries like France and Portugal lobbied for a 5% carbon-credit loophole, while Poland and Italy wanted as much as 10%. The divide reveals a truth that climate idealists prefer to ignore: for many governments, the rhetoric of decarbonization stops where industrial survival begins. As Polish Deputy Climate Minister Krzysztof Bolesta said bluntly, “We don’t want to destroy the economy. We don’t want to destroy the climate. We want to save both at the same time”.

In practice, that means the EU’s vaunted “science-based” targets are being reshaped not by scientists but by accountants and trade ministers. The bloc’s independent climate panel might say that only full domestic reductions count as “in line with science,” but policymakers have different priorities — especially when those scientific models come with astronomical costs and uncertain benefits.

The backdrop to this entire debate is telling. The article notes that COP30 will “test the will of major economies to keep fighting climate change in the face of opposition from U.S. President Donald Trump.” Once again, climate politics are framed as a moral contest — a clash between the virtuous and the heretical. Yet the very fact that the EU felt compelled to weaken its target betrays an uncomfortable truth: even Europe’s political class recognizes the limits of its green crusade.

This is the inevitable outcome of treating energy policy like a theology rather than a trade-off. The Green Deal promised both economic growth and deep decarbonization, but now member states are realizing they can’t have both. You can’t tax, regulate, and subsidize your way to prosperity while deliberately strangling your cheapest and most reliable energy sources.

The European ministers’ midnight compromise, for all its flaws, may actually be the first sign of sanity creeping back into the conversation. After years of posturing about “net zero at any cost,” the bloc is now quietly admitting that there are costs — and they’re steep. The carbon-credit loopholes, the delayed market mechanisms, the vague promises to “consider” future adjustments — all of these are political ways of saying the same thing: the dream is shrinking to fit the budget.

According to Reuters, some governments still argued for keeping the higher targets on the grounds that worsening extreme weather “requires ambitious goals” and that Europe must “catch up with China” in green manufacturing. Yet even those appeals ring hollow when one recalls that China’s emissions continue to rise year after year, with new coal plants opening monthly. “Catching up with China” in green manufacturing sounds noble, until you realize it means subsidizing expensive technologies to compete with a country that has no intention of playing by the same rules.

The EU’s decision is, therefore, less a triumph of diplomacy than a quiet admission of failure — or, more charitably, a long-overdue encounter with economic gravity. Europe has been trying to lead the world into a low-carbon future for three decades now, and what it has mostly achieved is higher energy prices, shuttered industries, and rising political discontent. Each new “target” merely pushes the problem further down the road, to be redefined again in another crisis meeting years later.

When Lars Aagaard said the EU must balance “competitiveness, social balance, and security,” he was describing the real hierarchy of priorities — one that climate idealists pretend doesn’t exist. Those words, buried in the middle of a Reuters dispatch, are far more honest than any of the slogans that will be shouted at COP30.

The lesson here is simple: reality always wins. You can promise 90% cuts, 100% renewables, or net-zero utopia, but in the end, the factories must run, the lights must stay on, and people must be able to afford to live. The EU’s new “weakened” climate target isn’t a betrayal of the cause — it’s a confession that the cause was unrealistic from the start.

If the architects of Europe’s climate policy truly want to save both the economy and the environment, they might start by abandoning the illusion that central planners can fine-tune the global climate through accounting tricks and summit speeches. The world does not bend to political deadlines, and the atmosphere doesn’t respond to press releases. It’s time policymakers did.

COP 30: Get U.S. out of this air travel UN offset scheme!

The Trump administration should pull America out of the ridiculous UN airline carbon-offset scheme known as “CORSIA” immediately.

Scattered hundred dollar bills floating against a blue sky.
Flying dollars banknotes against the sky background. Money is flying in the air. 100 US banknotes new sample. 3D illustration

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

The Trump administration should pull America out of the ridiculous UN airline carbon-offset scheme known as “CORSIA” immediately.

The clock is ticking!

As CFACT heads to Brazil for COP 30, the biggest and most dangerous UN climate conference of the year, we call on the Trump administration to finish the job and break America free of every useless redistribution scheme created in the name of climate.

Forcing you to pay more to “offset” your airline’s emissions every time you fly internationally does absolutely nothing meaningful to lower the temperature of the Earth. It does plenty to line the pockets of those looking to cash in.

President Obama pushed the United States into the UN’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) following the 39th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Montreal in 2016.

CORSIA seeks to address CO₂ emissions from international flights by requiring airlines to offset their emissions above a certain threshold by purchasing approved carbon credits.

The United States is currently participating in CORSIA’s “voluntary” phase through 2026. The scheme becomes “mandatory” in 2027.

CORSIA costs you every time you fly internationally. Experience teaches us that, if left unchecked, the costs of this aviation offset folly will grow and grow. Airlines even face a carbon-offset “shortage,” which will put upward pressure on fares.

China does not pay, as you might expect, despite transporting 59.3 million passengers in 2024.

We can expect the airline industry to have mixed opinions about exiting CORSIA.

Many industry insiders viewed forcing airlines to purchase carbon offsets as a lesser evil when they were faced with potentially far costlier schemes. CORSIA kept the airlines out of direct regulation under the Paris Climate Accord. CORSIA critics, both left and right, find themselves in rare agreement in viewing the scheme as a cover for corporate “greenwashing.”

However, President Trump initiated withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Accord soon after taking office. That, coupled with increasing acceptance of the reality that offsets are not an effective method for reducing CO2 emissions, makes the case for exiting CORSIA an easy one to comprehend.

Ideally, President Trump would have included withdrawing from CORSIA in his January 20, 2025, executive order “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements.” The Secretary of Transportation would have then notified the UN that America was exiting CORSIA before June 30, 2025.

Secretary Sean Duffy should inform the UN that America is pulling out of CORSIA now, before the scheme’s 2027 “mandatory” offsetting phase begins.

A legal argument can be made that America missed its chance to withdraw; however, CORSIA contains no international enforcement mechanism. If America’s air carriers cease reporting their emissions and purchasing offsets under the scheme, we will effectively be out.

The UN Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation is a costly, wasteful, ineffective climate scheme only a UN bureaucrat or climate profiteer could love.

CFACT advises President Trump to order Secretary Duffy and any and all appropriate officials to withdraw the United States from this UN airline carbon-offset scheme without further delay.

A paper airplane made of dollar bills soaring through a blue sky with clouds and sunlight.
Read the UN’s CORSIA
offset resolution at CFACT.org

corsia-Resolution_A39_3Herunterladen

Climate Alarmists Question Climate Exaggeration

Bill Gates has joined the reset of the climate agenda heading into COP30, scheduled to begin next week in Belém, Brazil. Gates will not be there; neither will Trump nor anyone from the federal government in their official capacity.

An illustration depicting multiple mice escaping from a sinking ship labeled 'NET ZERO', symbolizing a critique of climate policies.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“… far too many climate scientists have tilted toward or surrendered to exaggeration and hyperbole, making false predictions along the way. Little wonder why the general public has climate fatigue.”

Bill Gates has joined the reset of the climate agenda heading into COP30, scheduled to begin next week in Belém, Brazil. Gates will not be there; neither will Trump nor anyone from the federal government in their official capacity.

Instead of alarmism, immediate relief from extreme weather and adaptation are the order of the day (see here). COP activists might not realize it yet, but the multi-decade push for mitigation has peaked. Fossil fuels won despite the best (worst?) efforts of governments around the world to prop up inferior energies, the dilute, intermittent, fragile kind.

What is a climate alarmist to do? Hope and pray for extreme weather events to keep the narrative going? (How perverse!) For example, the big bet this year was many super hurricanes to keep the narrative going–and last year to counter Trump at the polls. Neither panned out with ambiguity about the anthropogenic effect on cyclones (number, intensity).

Alarm? Or Hope?

What is the messaging between alarm and hope? Between passivity and climate disobedience to ‘wake up’ the unconvinced public? Between exaggeration and attention? Remember what global-cooling-to-warming Steven Schneider stated at the beginning of the global warming debate?

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

With that assumption (CO2 alarmism) came a license to exaggerate.

To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. [1]

A false premise leading to a Hobson’s choice. And far too many climate scientists have tilted toward or surrendered to exaggeration and hyperbole, making false predictions along the way. Little wonder why the general public has climate fatigue.

Michael Mann Navigates ‘Doomism’

The story has to be grim–but not too grim. Michael Mann himself is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He argues all-bad-things from rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and concentrations. His other side warns against “doomism“, believing that inaction will result from a discouraged (if not disbelieving) public. [2]

Climate civil disobedience? Mann has rejected that too. [3]

A Recent Example

Consider this complaint from Rohit P, (“Sharing Stories of our planet and its Species | Responsible Tourism Advocate”), titled 𝐁𝐁𝐂, 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐭.

“Seriously,” he begins, “what on earth are ‘last-chance tourism’ pieces? What’s even ethical about it?

I’ve written before about tourism to Antarctica and other polar regions, this whole idea of rushing to see a place “before it’s gone.” Tour companies deliberately tap into this space, fueling FOMO and capitalizing on people’s fear of missing out on places that may soon disappear. How can something branded as “ethical” tourism also be “last-chance tourism”? It accelerates the very disappearance it claims to mourn….

The article essentially suggested: Yes, last-chance tourism is harmful but if people travel responsibly maybe their emotional grief can be channeled into climate action…. To me, it feels like an oxymoron of the highest order.

It is hard being green.

——————————

[1] Schneider. Quoted in Jonathan Schell, “Our Fragile Earth.” Discover (October 1989), pp. 45–48.

[2] Stated Mann and Peter J. Hotez in their new book Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World:

Doomism produces viral social media content — what’s been termed ‘climate doom porn,’ marked by dramatic but unsupported claims of collapsing ice sheets, runaway warming, and imminent extinction.

Doom porn sells, and it has surely borne fruit for the polluters, petrostates, and plutocrats who are fanning its flames. Consider the vitriol directed at Katharine Hayhoe and Mike [Michael Mann] by ostensible climate advocates who insist it’s too late to act and dismiss our messaging on urgency and efficacy as ‘”‘hopium,’ the implication being that we are selling ‘hope’ in the way, say, junkies on the street might sell drugs.”

… the doomers have risen from relative obscurity to prominence in a political economy where extreme claims and vitriolic attacks go viral and create huge, almost cultlike followings that are indeed — as we will see shortly — readily monetized.

Authentic users soon get entrained into the fracas and join in on the pile-on. As a result, climate Twitter today is filled with toxic doomist messaging and assaults on leading climate communicators who are subject to an endless onslaught of ‘hopium’ accusations from ostensible climate advocates anytime we dare claim that it’s not too late to do something about the climate crisis. This may be the most successful gambit yet in the attack on climate action.

[3] Michael Mann on climate disobedience (Mann. “Throwing Soup at Art Shifted People’s Views of Climate Protests—But Maybe Not In The Right Way,” November 15, 2022) wrote:

My fears were realized…. The public outrage was palpable…. The painting protest, by contrast, seemed bizarre and pointless, with no obvious message about the climate crisis. Who was the target? Van Gogh? Oil paintings (get it)? From a communications standpoint, the protest seemed like an even bigger mess than the soup-splattered painting.

The public, overall, just doesn’t like this sort of stuff. A plurality of [survey] respondents (46%) reported that these tactics decrease their support for efforts to address climate change. A whopping 27%, in fact, said they greatly decrease their support. Only 13% reported increased support…. If we are to win the battle against polluters and their enablers, we will need public opinion on our side not theirs.

New York’s climate law hits the wall

Hell done froze. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a leading contender for Greenest Governor in America, wants to redo their infamous Climate Act because New Yorkers cannot afford it. This is a sure sign that the rapidly rising cost of energy has become a big election issue.

A panoramic view of the New York City skyline featuring the Statue of Liberty in the foreground, with skyscrapers and wind turbines under a clear blue sky.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

Silver SUV partially embedded in a building, with wooden and stone exterior visible around it.

Hell done froze. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a leading contender for Greenest Governor in America, wants to redo their infamous Climate Act because New Yorkers cannot afford it. This is a sure sign that the rapidly rising cost of energy has become a big election issue.

Hochul’s position kicks off what promises to be a grand show over the next three months. New York State is between a rock and a green hard place. Change the law or do the impossible — their choice.

What set this all off is a court ruling that the Climate Act is in fact a law, not a political promise that can be ignored when convenient. The law calls for an impossible 40% cut in New York’s CO2 and other GHG emissions (from 1990 levels) by 2030.

The 2019 law, which remains one of the most ambitious in the country, gave the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) until January 2024 to issue regulations that would ensure New York meets these binding greenhouse gas emissions targets.

DEC never issued those regs, so a bunch of Big Green groups sued. DEC explained in court that issuing the regulations was “infeasible” because it “would require imposing extraordinary and damaging costs upon New Yorkers.”

The judge simply ruled that the law is the law and gave New York State two choices: change the law or issue the regs. The deadline is February 6, 2026, which gives the legislature a mere month to change the law, since it only starts in early January. Changing a law this big that fast will be very hard.

If the law is not changed, then final regs are due on that date, so they must be working on them now. However, Hochul says they will appeal this decision which might (or might not) drag things out for more months. The confusion is huge.

In any case, the NYS Legislature has to already be looking hard at this. Especially given that rising energy cost is a hot election issue and 2026 is an election year for every legislator. Furious lobbying must already be going on. The holiday season will be very green indeed.

There is a hilarious back story on the electric power side of these fanciful emission cuts. There have been lots of seemingly serious planning documents prepared by New York State electric power offices that are actually fictional.

These so-called plans make extensive use of a fiction called “dispatchable emissions-free resources” or DEFRs. It is acknowledged that DEFRs do not exist — except nuclear, which is not considered. So, there is no actual plan for meeting the Climate Law’s 2030 deadline. It simply cannot be done.

Anyone interested in this electric power fiasco should check out the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York run by Roger Caiazza here:

https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/.

Roger has steadily tracked and analyzed the Climate Law electric power nonsense for a long time, including submitting a lot of official comments that have been ignored. Now his warnings are coming alive and out of the Governor’s mouth no less. Congratulations, Roger!

There is also a national version of this story that will play out in slower motion over the next few years. Hochul correctly points out that the end of federal subsidies will make renewables a lot more expensive. Almost all states have climate or renewable mandates requiring a steady shift to renewables. These mandates are about to become a lot more costly to voters, so a lot of laws may change.

In summary, the New York State Climate Law is finally hitting the wall. The Law is the rock, and the impossible regulations are the hard place. Something has to give.

Stay tuned to CFACT as this great green drama unfolds.

Negligible future warming from: CO2 – CH4 – N2O

The current concentration of atmospheric CO2 at ~420 ppmv, (parts per million by volume), is very low in comparison with the atmospheric CO2 levels of past eons when plants evolved.

At those times with CO2 at ~5000 ppmv+ there was no runaway Global warming.

A serene landscape featuring a tranquil lake surrounded by lush greenery and mountains, with a glacier visible in the background and icebergs floating on the water.

From The CO2 – Coalition

By Ed Hoskins

A picturesque sunset over a serene lake, with vibrant orange and yellow hues reflecting on the water, surrounded by lush greenery and dark silhouettes of trees.
Graph illustrating the contributions to greenhouse effect from CO2 concentration, displaying temperature increments related to varying CO2 levels and the impact of water vapor and clouds.

Contents

  • Summary
  • Introduction
  • Water is the most significant Greenhouse gas
  • The radiation physics of atmospheric CO2 by Professor William Happer
  • The lowest levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide contribute most to its Greenhouse warming effect
  • The Alarmist reasoning for a major temperature increase from Man-made CO2
  • Carbon Dioxide starvation
  • Colder Oceans progressively re-absorb CO2 from the atmosphere
  • The temperature contributions of the Methane CH4 and Nitrous Oxide N2O
  • Conclusions
    • As far as Climate Alarm is concerned Never forget: Sun Tsu’s first art of war
    • The late Professor Sir David MacKay
  • Notes:
    • Professor Richard Lindzen
    • Dr. William Happer a short note on Carbon Dioxide warming
    • A long-term history of the atmospheric composition and global temperature
    • References

Summary

The current concentration of atmospheric CO2 at ~420 ppmv, (parts per million by volume), is very low in comparison with the atmospheric CO2 levels of past eons when plants evolved.

At those times with CO2 at ~5000 ppmv+ there was no runaway Global warming.

The warming effectiveness of added CO2 in the atmosphere diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration, as acknowledged in IPCC reports: IPCC AR5 WG1 (2014) – IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch5 (2021).

At its current low concentration of CO2 at 420ppmv its Global warming effectiveness of is already ~72%+ saturated.

The potential for increased Global warming from any added atmospheric CO2, whether natural, from it’s out-gasing from marginally warmer Oceans or from Man-made additions, is already close to exhaustion.

From its current concentration atmospheric with CO2 at ~420 ppmv even a doubling to 840 ppmv, (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, ECS), would cause little additional warming, amounting a ~1% effect of the ~33°C total Greenhouse effect or ~0.33°C.

Attaining ECS at 840 ppmv will take ~150+ years at current growth rates of natural and Manmade CO2 emissions.

All further added CO2 and any minor temperature increase, with likely milder nights, will be a huge benefit to the biosphere and to agriculture.

All attempts by Mankind to limit or even reabsorb further CO2 emissions or other Greenhouse gasses will have no further major controlling effect on Global temperature.

Any actions to reduce CO2 emissions can only be detrimental to the biosphere and economically damaging for any participant Nation.

In order to improve their state of development developing Nations will continue to increase their CO2 emissions by using their indigenous Fossil fuels.

As only a minority of Western Nations are attempting to avoid a supposed Global Overheating Catastrophe by reducing their emissions of Greenhouse Gasses, their policies can only be self-harming and pointless.

Western developed World CO2 emissions amount to ~1/3 of total Man-made CO2 emissions and overall Man-made CO2 emissions amount to ~3% of the total CO2 output of the whole CO2 cycle.

As sequestration of atmospheric CO2 by oceanic creatures is unstoppable in Glacial times, Man kind’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere may even help to extend the viability of plant life in future millennia and thus the continued existence of all life on Earth.

These facts, if anywhere close to reality, entirely negate any need to pursue Net Zero policies to limit or sequester Man-made CO2 emissions, (Carbon Capture and Storage CCS).

However they do justify a radical reassessment of all alarmist concerns for a massive Man-made Global Warming Catastrophe.

Using an IPCC estimate, that the full warming influence of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~8.2% of the 33°C Greenhouse effect amounting to ~2.7°C, the diagram below shows the scale, proportionality and the global warming potential of all main Greenhouse gasses but emphasising the significance of atmospheric Water Vapour.

A graph illustrating the contributions to the greenhouse effect according to carbon dioxide concentration, showing levels from 0 to 2000 ppmv. The chart indicates the impact of water vapor and clouds on temperature and highlights current CO2 levels at 420 ppmv, with various temperature increments represented.

Read Ed Hoskins’ complete commentary, published on October 24, 2025 here.

Follow Ed’s Substack here

Ed Hoskins is a member of the CO2 Coalition. Hoskins had an educational grounding in science subjects. He qualified both as a Dentist with distinction at Guys in London in 1962 and as an Architect in Cambridge in 1969 with a double first. In 1969 Ed founded Applied Research of Cambridge Ltd. (ARC). He headed it thereafter as Managing Director and later Chairman.

What’s New!

The CO2 Coalition filed this Comment to the EPA on November 3: William Happer EPA GHGRP Comment Nov. 3, 2025 – CO2 Coalition

In case you missed it, Dr. William Happer and Dr. Richard Lindzen joined Joe Rogan on his podcast The Joe Rogan Experience.

Eco-Activists’ Courtroom Carbon Tax Must Be Stopped

“U.S. helps sink world’s first global carbon tax,” read the headline. And every American who values common sense should celebrate.

A large wooden sculpture of a horse, resembling the Trojan Horse, set against a dramatic cloudy sky.

Watts Up With That?

By Larry Behrens

“U.S. helps sink world’s first global carbon tax,” read the headline. And every American who values common sense should celebrate.

President Trump’s administration stood firm against the United Nations’ attempt to impose a worldwide carbon tax through the International Maritime Organization’s laughable “net zero framework.” The message couldn’t be clearer: America’s energy policy is made in Washington—not dictated by unelected global bureaucrats.

But while the global carbon tax was stopped abroad, the same idea is being smuggled in here at home—through the courts. Environmental activists and their trial lawyer allies are attempting to do in the U.S. what the U.N. could not: force a carbon tax on working families.

Recently, one of the attorneys associated with a climate lawsuit got caught telling the truth behind their strategy. Here’s the full quote in his own words:

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax. You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products. In some sense, it is the most efficient way. The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. … [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

That’s not spin—that’s a confession.

“The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products… The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Translation: We know working families are going to pay the price.

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax…… [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

Translation: We know we can’t pass this through Congress, so we’re going through the backdoor.

Americans already know a carbon tax means higher prices—and they’ve rejected it every time. According to one poll, more than half 55% say they are unwilling to pay even $1 more per month on their energy bills for climate action. That disapproval skyrockets to 75% when the proposed cost reaches $75 or more per month. The bottom line is working families won’t support higher energy costs for symbolic climate virtue-signaling.

The Trump Administration understands that carbon taxes—whether global or domestic—hurt working Americans. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether to allow these climate lawsuits to proceed. Over 100 Members of Congress, led by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, have urged the Court to reject them, warning that activists are trying to use the judiciary to achieve what Congress has repeatedly refused to do.

If carbon tax proponents truly believe in their cause, they should make their case before Congress. But they won’t. Even the most left-wing members know that voting for a new carbon tax would be political suicide. So instead, they’re counting on sympathetic courts to do their dirty work. And they’re counting on the public not to notice before it’s too late.

When the lawyers for the environmental movement tell you what they’re trying to do, believe them. They’ve admitted quiet part out loud: their lawsuits are a carbon tax by another name. The Supreme Court must see through this scheme and shut it down before Americans are forced to pay the price.

Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Cal Laws Compell PC Climate Speech, Exxon Sues for Free Speech

Sometimes big corporations are their own worst enemies. They say things and do things that at the moment sound good and perhaps win an immediate PR battle, but those same words or positions can come back to bite them later. Such is the case for ExxonMobil. 

A man in a suit passionately speaking at a podium outdoors with a blurred city background, accompanied by the text 'No gas and oil.'

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

A professional headshot of Bruce Pardy, a professor of law, with a serious expression. He is dressed in a blazer and shirt, positioned against a blurred background.

Tim O’Brien explains the climate lawfare in his PJ article Is California Attempting to ‘Suicide’ Big Oil and Write the Suicide Note? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Sometimes big corporations are their own worst enemies. They say things and do things that at the moment sound good and perhaps win an immediate PR battle, but those same words or positions can come back to bite them later. Such is the case for ExxonMobil. 

Back in 2006, almost 20 years ago, the company’s then-CEO Rex Tillerson told the New York Times that a company report had acknowledged the link between the consumption of fossil fuels and rising global temperatures, saying, “We recognize that climate change is a serious issue.” He then added, “We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change.” 

This massive gesture of appeasement was a major concession, and it awarded a huge victory to climate alarmists. In that same article, the Times suggested that if Tillerson was successful, ExxonMobil would “no longer be the oil company that environmentalists love to hate.” 

A scene depicting a historical battle with figures climbing a stone wall, featuring the names 'Exxon' and 'Mobil' in red text superimposed on the image.
Climate Activists storm the bastion of Exxon Mobil, here seen without their shareholder disguises.

How’d that work out? Did they back off of ExxonMobil and other big oil companies as a result? No, they ramped up the pressure so steadily and so heavily that over the years, “climate change” activists led ExxonMobil by the nose. It went full bore into “sustainability,” and it even supports the Paris Agreement, also known as the Paris Climate Accord. 

After years of incremental surrender to the left, the company now finds itself in the position of having to sue the state of California over a pair of 2023 “disclosure laws” that amount to the state mandating what companies can and cannot say about certain climate change matters. 

A political cartoon depicting a government building with a large lightbulb on top, discussing the prospect of mandating renewable electricity percentages in California. Speech bubbles suggest increasing the mandate to 60%, 80%, or even 100% by 2045, humorously referring to it as the 'Unaffordable Power Act.'

Last week, the company sued California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on claims that Senate Bills 253 and 261 “trumpet California’s message.” The message in question, apparently, is that big oil and other major companies are “uniquely responsible for climate change.” In its lawsuit, Exxon Mobil said it considers this sort of message as “misleading.” The suit challenges both laws on grounds that they are First Amendment violations. The intent of the litigation is to stop these laws from going into effect in 2026. 

The climate alarmists and their entire sector are portraying the laws as requiring basic “climate-related transparency.” 

An illustration of Humpty Dumpty sitting on a wall, interacting with Alice. Text includes a conversation between them about the meaning of words.

But if you dig into these laws, it reminds me of that old saying about free speech. It goes like this: “Communist China believes in free speech. So long as you say what the government likes, you can say whatever you want.” That pretty much sums up this situation.

More specifically, ExxonMobil contends that to comply, it would need to
rely on “frameworks that place disproportionate blame
on large companies like ExxonMobil.”

Senate Bill 253

Gov. “Slick” Newsom signed Senate Bill 253 (the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) into law in 2023. It requires big companies to disclose a wide range of emissions, and not just the stuff coming out of their industrial pipes and smoke stacks. They’d even have to report “direct and indirect emissions” that would include quantitative measurement of and a cost for employee business travel and product transport. 

I’ve seen some of this type of internal tracking and reporting up close, and it’s ridiculous. It’s all in line with ESG measurements and processes that are inconsistent at best. Just as often, it’s a scoring system built on “Wild A** Guesses.” 

A cartoon depicting a conversation about climate forecasts. The left panel features a man asking about the long-term forecast, seeing a report indicating scorching heat in 2060. The right panel shows him asking about the weekend's weather, to which he receives an uncertain reply.

Senate Bill 261

Senate Bill 261 (or the Climate-related Financial Risk Act ) gets even more pointedly at the First Amendment issues at play. This law requires businesses that generate more than $500 million per year to “disclose” the financial impacts and risks they face from climate change, and how they will respond. 

More to the point, ExxonMobil said that if it even tried to comply with this law, it would have to guess on things it can’t even know about in advance. Essentially, it would have to try to predict the future and put those predictions on its own website. 

A cartoon depicting a scientist wearing a wizard hat, holding a clipboard labeled 'CLIMATE SCIENCE' and saying, 'COOLING IS THE NEW WARMING!'

At the same time, the suit points out that Exxon doesn’t even have
any crude oil or natural gas exploration, production, manufacturing,
transport or refining operations in California. 

On the First Amendment issue, in ExxonMobil’s case, the company is expected to argue that both laws require companies to speak publicly in specific ways. The laws don’t simply mandate that the company disclose factual data on past activities and results, but rather that it must speculate in ways it cannot reasonably and responsibly do. 

A political cartoon depicting a whimsical welcome sign for California featuring various road signs related to environmental regulations, a person with a cart labeled 'Candles,' and a castle in the background.

This is “compelled speech.” While the First Amendment protects the right to speak, it also protects the right not to have the government force you to speak, or to incorporate the government’s desired message. This is known as the “compelled speech doctrine.” While it is usually described as it pertains to individual rights, there is some history of commercial businesses running into this same issue.

What all of this amounts to is it seems that as industries go, California is attempting to “suicide” Big Oil, and it even wants to write the suicide note for the industry.

A stylized illustration of a samurai kneeling with a katana, surrounded by red splatters, conveying a theme of honor and sacrifice.