Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
CO2’s role in climate change is too small to detect in error-ridden attribution measurements.
Downward longwave radiation (DWLWR) at the ocean surface “is among the most important components of the heat flux across the ocean-atmosphere interface, which, in turn, shapes the climate state of both the atmosphere and the ocean” (Peng et al., 2025).
According to canonical anthropogenic global warming (AGW) “science,” in an imaginary-world atmosphere where no clouds exist it takes 10 years, or a 22 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, to enhance DWLWR by just 0.2 W/m² (Feldman et al., 2015). The annual clear-sky forcing change from CO2 is, of course, ten times smaller than this, or 0.02 W/m².
To put these values in perspective, DWLWR from changes in cloud radiative forcing can reach 200 W/m² within a span of hours (Wielicki et al., 2002, Wong and Minnett, 2018). Thus, day-to-day changes in cloud in the real-world, all-sky atmosphere can enhance or decrease DWLWR 1000 times more than CO2 does over the course of a full year.
This negligible or unmentionable CO2 impact may be why, in a new study, scientists do not even consider CO2’s bit role in shaping DWLWR. Clouds, water vapor, air and sea surface temperature, and surface solar radiation are documented contributors (see Table 2). CO2 is not.
In attempts to model the variations and trends in all-sky DWLWR attributed to its contributing factors, scientists find that primarily due to inability to accurately estimate or observe cloud radiative effects, model error (RMSE, root mean square error) in calculating all-sky DWLWR ranges from 15.6-19.1 W/m².
A RMSE of about 17.4 W/m² means a decadal-scale DWLWR CO2 “signal” (0.2 W/m²) is ~87 times smaller than DWLWR measurement error. This precludes detection of CO2’s role in DWLWR, and thus CO2’s role in climate.
The AGW narrative insists CO2 is the “control knob” of global temperature. Anyone who disagrees or even questions this is often labeled a “climate denier.” The narrative consequently requires its adherents to abandon any consideration of uncertainty and error in attribution (“control knob”) detection.
This is the title of a recent article published on January 7, 2026, by Charles Rotter on Watts Up With That.
Charles Rotter tells the story behind an academic paper by Bernhard Forchtner, titled “The Rise of (Affective) Obstruction: Conceptualizing the Evolution of Far-Right Climate Change Communication (1986–2018),” which was published in the journal Environmental Communication in late 2025.
This is the title of a recent article published on January 7, 2026, by Charles Rotter on Watts Up With That.
Charles Rotter tells the story behind an academic paper by Bernhard Forchtner, titled “The Rise of (Affective) Obstruction: Conceptualizing the Evolution of Far-Right Climate Change Communication (1986–2018),” which was published in the journal Environmental Communication in late 2025.
Bernhard Forchtner’s paper, “The Rise of (Affective) Obstruction: Conceptualizing the Evolution of Far-Right Climate Change Communication (1986–2018)”, is presented as a neutral, longitudinal investigation into how climate skepticism supposedly “evolved” on the political right. It spans more than thirty years, codes 733 articles, and deploys a sophisticated vocabulary of “affect,” “emotive economies,” and “melodramatic narration” to explain why opposition to climate policy exists at all.
Yet from the outset, the paper makes clear that it is not trying to understand skeptics. It is trying to explain them away.
ABSTRACT
Research has illustrated that today’s far right in the Global North takes largely climate obstructionist stances, commonly featuring ageist/misogynistic/racist tropes. However, little is known about how this present became to be, how climate change was articulated in the 2000s and earlier. I therefore ask: how has far-right climate communication evolved between 1986 and 2018? Have there been notable changes at the level of both specific claims and their emotiveness – and if so, what might explain them? In response, I analyze 733 articles printed across four exemplary, continuously published (non-)party sources covering the Austrian and German far-right spectrum, in order to offer a novel conceptualization of three periods: benevolent silence (1986-1996), concerned acceptance (1997-2006), and antagonistic obstruction (2007-2018). Thus, I show that the far right became today’s (affective-)obstructionist force and link this shift to: the US climate countermovement; dynamics in the political field; and, interrelated, increasingly melodramatic (affective) climate communication, turning climate change into another site for the making of far-right subjectivity. By conceptualizing three periods, by considering the development over time of both specific claims and affect, and by suggesting reasons behind this evolution, I substantively contribute to understanding far-right climate obstruction and the anti-liberal/anti-democratic backlash it facilitates.
The author states early on that the far right “takes largely obstructionist stances, i.e. opposing effective climate action.” That sentence looks innocuous until one pauses to notice what is being smuggled in. “Effective climate action” is treated as a settled category, not an open question. Opposition is therefore not disagreement but obstruction by definition. No evaluation of policy outcomes is offered. No cost–benefit analysis is attempted. Effectiveness is assumed, not demonstrated.
This framing is never revisited. It is the theological axiom on which the entire paper rests.
Throughout the study, skepticism is defined not as an intellectual challenge to climate claims or climate policy, but as a cultural and emotional deviation. Forchtner repeatedly emphasizes that obstruction is not primarily about evidence or uncertainty, but about feelings:
“Obstruction revolves not simply around propositional knowledge (specific claims) but ‘affective positioning’; obstruction is also affective obstruction.”
This is not an incidental remark. It is the paper’s central move. By redefining skepticism as affective positioning rather than analytical judgment, the author exempts himself from having to engage with skeptical arguments at all. One does not debate emotions; one diagnoses them.
Later, skepticism is explicitly framed as a community-building exercise rather than a reasoned stance:
“The far right is also a ‘community of feelings’ which offers ‘alternative perceptions, interpretations and feelings about everyday phenomena, political debates and the right-wing project itself’.”
Note what is absent. There is no mention of alternative models, alternative interpretations of climate sensitivity, alternative readings of observational data, or alternative risk assessments. The alternatives that matter here are emotional, not analytical.
This pattern continues when the paper describes how skepticism allegedly functions psychologically:
“Climate change became another site… of (re)producing far-right subjectivity and Othering of, e.g. ‘globalist elites’, ‘Greens’, ‘the left’ and racialized Others.”
Here, disagreement with climate policy is not treated as disagreement with policy. It is treated as a tool for identity construction, moral boundary drawing, and social antagonism. Skepticism is not wrong; it is suspect.
The author’s own language makes clear that skepticism is viewed as a moral failure rather than an epistemic one. Opposition to climate policy is said to “facilitate the anti-liberal/anti-democratic backlash.” This claim appears in both the abstract and the conclusion, functioning as a kind of moral bookend to the analysis.
But nowhere is this causal chain demonstrated. No evidence is presented that skepticism causes authoritarianism, nor that acceptance of climate alarmism prevents it. The association is asserted, not argued.
The most revealing passages are those in which the author describes the emotional “inversion” he believes characterizes skepticism:
“What was accepted and an object of concern (human-induced climate change), became opposed, with concern attached to climate protection and contempt for those driving it.”
This sentence is meant as an indictment. In reality, it is an admission.
Yes—concern shifted from speculative climate projections to concrete climate policies. That shift was not emotional pathology. It was rational prioritization. Policies are tangible. They have measurable costs. They affect energy prices, industrial competitiveness, household budgets, grid stability, and food production. Climate models, by contrast, are abstractions with widening uncertainty ranges the further they project.
The paper never asks why concern might rationally move in that direction. Instead, it treats the shift as evidence of “melodrama,” “antagonism,” and “affective obstruction.”
That framing becomes explicit when the author claims:
“Period 3 is characterized by an increasingly antagonistic attitude of clear-cut boundaries and certainty rather than rhetorical constraint, ambiguity, and doubt.”
This is one of the paper’s most ironic passages. Climate skepticism is being criticized for certainty by an academic field that routinely declares “the science is settled,” labels dissent as dangerous, and frames climate change as an existential emergency requiring immediate, sweeping intervention.
If anyone has abandoned rhetorical constraint and doubt, it is not the skeptics.
The paper’s treatment of scientific disagreement further illustrates its ideological enclosure. When skeptics invoke uncertainty, alternative explanations, or methodological critiques, these are framed not as arguments but as imported talking points, often attributed to malign influence:
“The article traces this evolution back to… the US climate change countermovement which diffused obstructionist views within the European far right already during the 1990s.”
This explanation absolves European skeptics of agency while simultaneously denying them intellectual autonomy. They did not reason their way to skepticism; they were infected by it. Ideas do not spread because they explain anomalies or resolve contradictions. They spread because of networks, ideology, and affect.
That is the worldview on display.
Even when the paper acknowledges internal dissent—articles within the same publications defending mainstream climate science or warning against conspiratorial thinking—these are treated as deviations from the narrative rather than evidence that skepticism is internally contested and intellectually heterogeneous.
One such intervention is quoted by the author himself, warning that denying greenhouse-gas risks would be “fatal” from a scientific point of view. Yet this moment is not used to interrogate why skepticism persists despite such warnings. Instead, it is presented as a lost battle against an inevitable slide into obstruction.
The possibility that skepticism might be responding to real weaknesses in climate science or climate policy is never entertained.
Most striking is the paper’s repeated insistence that skepticism is fundamentally melodramatic:
“Through melodrama, powerful affective responses are circulated to ‘stick to’ and ‘stick together’, to increase polarization of ‘good vs. evil’.”
This would be a devastating critique—if it were not a perfect description of mainstream climate communication itself. Apocalypse framing. Moral binaries. Urgency narratives. Children as symbols. Dissenters as villains. These are not inventions of skeptics. They are staples of climate advocacy.
Yet the paper treats melodrama as a one-way phenomenon, flowing outward from skeptics while leaving the dominant narrative untouched.
In the end, the paper accomplishes exactly what climate communication research has been doing for years: it studies opposition without granting it intellectual dignity. It catalogs language without engaging substance. It interprets disagreement as pathology. It substitutes affect theory for epistemology.
The most honest sentence in the entire paper is likely unintentional. When Forchtner writes that skepticism turns climate change into “another site for the making of far-right subjectivity,” he reveals the underlying assumption: climate change already belongs to one side. To resist that ownership is not to argue, but to trespass.
Until climate researchers are willing to step outside that assumption—until they can imagine that skepticism might arise from disciplined uncertainty rather than emotional deficiency—they will continue producing elaborate studies that explain everything except the thing that matters.
They may quote skeptics endlessly.
They may code them meticulously.
They may analyze their “affective economies” until the funding runs out.
They will still have no idea why climate skepticism exists.
Electricity poverty, or lack of access to reliable electricity, remains one of the biggest barriers to human development. Without electricity, communities face limited education (no lights for studying), healthcare (no refrigeration for vaccines), economic opportunities (no powered tools or businesses), and overall quality of life.
Electricity poverty, or lack of access to reliable electricity, remains one of the biggest barriers to human development.
Without electricity, communities face limited education (no lights for studying), healthcare (no refrigeration for vaccines), economic opportunities (no powered tools or businesses), and overall quality of life.
Kidnapped little girl sitting in old dark room. Human trafficking concept.
It’s disheartening that the wealthier country governments have chosen electricity generation “winners”, i.e., wind and solar, to generate electricity, paid with taxpayer funds, to support government mandates and subsidies. These actions are unethical to the entire population of 8 billion on this planet and an insult to the taxpayers in those wealthy countries.
Rather than pursuing the most reliable sources of electricity generation that are also continuous and uninterruptible, like nuclear, hydro, coal, or natural gas, wealthier countries are pursuing, with taxpayer dollars, the least reliable source of electricity generation that is also NOT continuous nor reliable, via weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels. Obviously, wealthier countries are pursuing the MOST expensive ways to generate electricity, while those in poverty don’t have enough money to subsidize themselves out of a paper bag.
In pursuit of net zero emissions, Western governments have committed to shuttering reliable fossil plants that are absolutely required to back up wind and solar. If these shutdowns continue as planned, blackouts, grid failure, and severe damage could result.
The Western world has spent trillions of dollars on unreliable wind and solar to replace reliable sources of electricity. Wind and solar still produce less than 10% of the world’s electricity. They plan to commit trillions more attempting to eliminate fossil fuels. This is impossible because wind and solar are unreliable and can ONLY generate electricity but cannot replace the 6,000 products and transportation fuels based on fossil fuels. These wasted trillions of dollars could be used to save millions of lives and to pull billions of poor people out of energy poverty.
The world can be divided into wealthy countries and poor countries; those with reliable electricity and those without. Modern societies depend on electricity. To comprehend this, imagine your life after a sudden loss of electricity.
Homes would not have lights, TV, cell phones, cooking, refrigeration, computers, and no heating or air conditioning.
Homes would freeze in the winter and be hot in the summer.
The most urgent problem people would face would be the loss of water because the water treatment plants run on electricity.
People can live only three days without drinking water, and they cannot shower, wash their hands, or flush the toilet.
In a city without electricity:
There are no stores open, so there’s no food.
Gas pumps don’t work, credit cards don’t work,
Traffic lights don’t work; nothing works.
Imagine high-rise apartments without lights, water, AC, or elevators, and toilets that don’t flush.
It would be catastrophic if any modern society lost electricity, but the number of people WITHOUT electricity access was about 730 million in 2024.
Those in poverty desperately need and want electricity to lift themselves out of poverty.
Those in poverty want what we have: reliable electricity to provide all the wonderful benefits of modern life enjoyed by those in wealthy countries.
Poverty means:
Poor diet, poor health, shorter life span expectancy, minimal education, and other hazards.
Child mortality in Africa is 14 times higher than in Europe.
Another result of poverty: over three million people die annually from lung disease caused by 2.1 billion women cooking over open fires using wood, charcoal, crop residue, waste, or dung.
Three million dying from lung disease in poverty locations is just a number, right? Stalin once said, “One life is a tragedy, a million lives is just a statistic.” But let’s put three million into perspective. When there is a tragic airplane crash in wealthy countries killing several people, it makes news for days and initiates thorough investigations.
More people die annually in poverty around the world from cooking over open fires than would die if an airliner with 320 passengers crashed every hour of the day, and every day of the year. Of course, the world should not tolerate that, yet we still have three million deaths per year from cooking over open fires.
Other analogies to put three million deaths annually into perspective:
That is more deaths annually than have died in all the natural disasters in the 21st Century.
Three million is also ten times the deaths caused by the entire Russian/Ukraine war (high estimate is 300,000).
Tragically, almost an equal number of three million die in poverty from communicable diseases caused by unsafe drinking water and lack of sanitation facilities.
Because of the immensity of these tragedies, the world needs to mount a significant effort by all the countries, foundations, financial institutions, and corporations of the world to bring LPG stoves, safe water, and electricity to the poor of the world. The LPG stoves could be provided faster and with less funding, so they should be done while continuous and uninterrupted electricity is being built out.
Most countries in Africa have good fossil fuel reserves, so why don’t Africans have electricity?
One of the reasons, besides poverty, is that for five decades or more, Western World governments, and a loose cabal of financial institutions, including the UN and World Bank, have blocked financing of fossil fuel systems in the developing world. At the Africa summit in Washington earlier this year, Secretary Chris Wright said:
“Western countries such as the United States have for years been “shamelessly” telling Africa that coal is bad and not to develop it. That’s just nonsense, 100 percent nonsense…Coal transformed our world and made it better, extended life expectancy and grew opportunities, and coal globally will be the largest source of electricity for decades to come. That’s not a policy, that’s not a desire, that’s just a reality.”
Globally, there are 3 billion people using less electricity annually than required to run a standard refrigerator; many are limited to one-tenth that. The availability of limited electricity has been a great leap forward because it has provided communication and minimal lighting, but it is totally inadequate to support industry. Eliminating poverty requires jobs, and jobs require industry, and that requires cheap, reliable electricity.
Surprisingly, these poor people have cell phones, so they are aware of the wonderful benefits of electricity in the developed world and are determined to get it. This pent-up demand has created a huge market for electricity in the developing world. It is urgently needed now, so initially it must be fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, but nuclear should be included as quickly as possible.
The World Bank says there are now 720 million living in extreme poverty, defined as less than $3/day. To combat poverty, we need jobs, and good industrial jobs require cheap, reliable electricity.
Wealthy countries should stop pursuing the least reliable source of electricity generation that is neither continuous, nor reliable, via weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels, and should focus on improving the well-being of the billions on this planet who live in poverty. That positive direction for ALL of mankind will vastly increase the demand for, and thus the energy associated with, all conventional products and services from home heating and cooling, to transportation, healthcare, and more.
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV Commentator- Energy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato.
Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, energy consultant, speaker, author of books and articles on energy, environmental policy, and human rights, and Founder of PTS Advance, a California based company.
Ron advocates that energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.
Jimmie Dollard worked 20 years as a systems engineer and manager in aerospace, then for four years with the USDOE in Solar Energy. He left DOE to form and serve as President of a solar energy company. He then formed and served as President of a nuclear and environmental consulting firm. Since retiring, he has enjoyed researching climate, energy, and human conditions in the world. He recently wrote SWITCHED, an adventure novel to bring the messages of this Op Ed.
Restrictions on Fossil Fuel Financing in Developing Countries
There has been a concerted effort by many Western governments, multilateral development banks (MDBs) like the World Bank and regional equivalents, and international bodies influenced by them (including UN-aligned climate frameworks) to severely restrict or end public financing for fossil fuel projects in developing countries.
This is not a secret “cabal”, but a series of public policies driven by climate goals, primarily post-Paris Agreement (2015).
World Bank Group:
In 2017, announced it would stop financing upstream oil and gas projects after 2019, with limited exceptions (e.g., for gas in poorest countries or specific circumstances).
Focus shifted heavily to renewables and climate-aligned projects.
Western Governments:
Over 40 countries and public finance institutions signed a 2021 COP26 pledge to end international public finance for fossil fuels by end-2022 (with exceptions for gas in some cases).
US under Biden (2021 guidance) opposed most fossil projects at MDBs but allowed gas flexibility. Similar restrictions from UK, EU, Canada.
UN Role:
UN climate processes (UNFCCC, COP decisions) push for phasing out fossil fuels and redirecting finance to renewables.
Paris Agreement emphasizes developed nations assisting developing ones with mitigation/adaptation, interpreted by many as prioritizing clean energy.
On January 7, 2026, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States.”
This Executive Order directs the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties deemed contrary to U.S. national interests.
On January 7, 2026, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States.”
This Executive Order directs the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties deemed contrary to U.S. national interests.
31 United Nations-affiliated entities
35 non-UN organizations
Notable inclusions are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), along with other bodies related to population, human rights, and global cooperation.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct:
Section 1. Purpose. (a) On February 4, 2025, I issued Executive Order 14199 (Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations). That Executive Order directed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the United States Representative to the United Nations, to conduct a review of all international intergovernmental organizations of which the United States is a member and provides any type of funding or other support, and all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party, to determine which organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States. The Secretary of State has reported his findings as required by Executive Order 14199.
(b) I have considered the Secretary of State’s report and, after deliberating with my Cabinet, have determined that it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum.
(c) Consistent with Executive Order 14199 and pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to take immediate steps to effectuate the withdrawal of the United States from the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum as soon as possible. For United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.
(d) My review of further findings of the Secretary of State remains ongoing.
Sec. 2. Organizations from Which the United States Shall Withdraw. (a) Non-United Nations Organizations:
(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
(ii) Colombo Plan Council;
(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
(iv) Education Cannot Wait;
(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering
Hybrid Threats;
(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;
(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;
(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;
(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;
(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;
(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;
(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;
(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;
(xviii) International Development Law Organization;
(xix) International Energy Forum;
(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;
(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;
(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;
(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;
(xxiv) International Renewable Energy Agency;
(xxv) International Solar Alliance;
(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;
(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;
(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;
(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;
(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;
(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;
(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;
(xxxiii) Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;
(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and
(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) International Trade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) UN Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) UN Population Fund;
(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
(xxix) UN System Staff College;
(xxx) UN Water; and
(xxxi) UN University.
Sec. 3. Implementation Guidance. The Secretary of State shall provide additional guidance as needed to agencies when implementing this memorandum.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
The “Theft Industrial Complex” describes systems where taxpayer funds are allegedly diverted on a massive scale to political allies, activist networks, nonprofits, and insiders, rather than reaching intended beneficiaries.
The “Theft Industrial Complex” describes systems where taxpayer funds are allegedly diverted on a massive scale to political allies, activist networks, nonprofits, and insiders, rather than reaching intended beneficiaries.
Examples:
1.Minnesota’s Childcare Fraud
2.California’s High-Speed Rail Project (“Rail to Nowhere”)
Many Americans are watching in amazement and horror at the serious allegations of government fraud and waste. These are not small clerical errors or isolated mistakes. It’s about taxpayer dollars — on an enormous scale — siphoned away from the people and programs they were supposed to help. And being stolen from those who are footing the bill.
The most recent example is in Minnesota, where an independent journalist uncovered seeming widespread abuse in childcare and health programs, including Somali-run daycare operations accused of billing the state for services never provided. Reports suggest the potential total loss may reach into the hundreds of millions — if not more.
As Americans prepare to file their taxes in April, it is infuriating to watch billions of dollars treated so casually by the same politicians who constantly tell us they care about “affordability.” At some point, the culprits must be identified and held to account because the modern left has created a Theft Industrial Complex. That’s where taxpayer money is funneled to political allies, activist organizations, nonprofit networks, and consultants who laugh all the way to the bank while escaping accountability
Here are just three glaring examples:
Minnesota’s Childcare Fraud
The Minnesota daycare scandal is a heartbreaking example. Allegations describe fraudulent billing schemes, fake attendance records, and nonexistent children bused as financial vehicles to extract money from taxpayers. The money was supposed to support real families and real children. Instead, much of it may have gone to fraud, abuse, and personal enrichment.
Gavin Newsom’s Rail to Nowhere
California offers another example. Governor Gavin Newsom wants to continue to pour staggering amounts of taxpayer funding into a high-speed rail project that remains years behind schedule, way over budget, and nowhere near completion. After 16 years and $15 billion spent, the proposed 800-mile rail has only completed 119 miles. The Trump Administration correctly cut the remaining $4 billion. Families don’t see improvement, affordability, or accountability. What they see is a political class insisting taxpayers keep writing checks while producing very little in return.
Climate Cash and Political Allies
Then there is the Biden administration’s climate agenda. Internal records and congressional findings reveal that political activists — including figures such as John Podesta — played influential roles in steering major policy decisions like the pause on natural gas export approvals. Potentially to boost financial gain for family members. At the same time, billions in federal climate grants have been awarded to organizations tightly connected to Democratic operatives. One group linked to Stacey Abramseven dissolved after congressional scrutiny intensified. Once again, the people benefiting were not working-class families — they were political insiders and aligned institutions.
The total sum of these three examples is north $18 billion dollars in questionable or wasted spending. And that’s only a snapshot of what has become routine.
It Was Never Really About Affordability
The next time you hear a leftist politician claim they are fighting for affordability, fairness, or working families, it is worth asking a simple question: why does the money so often seem to end up with political allies, activist networks, and government insiders instead of the people they claim to champion? That’s the Theft Industrial Complex at work. Taxpayers provide the funding. Political machines reap the rewards. Ordinary Americans are expected to quietly pick up the tab year after year.
As another tax season approaches, maybe it’s time to demand leaders who treat taxpayer dollars like a trust — not a slush fund. Because whenever the left starts talking about climate spending, childcare expansion, or new “equity” initiatives, the pattern is becoming impossible to ignore. They’re not fighting for our families. They’re fighting for our money.
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.
“Energy Transition Meltdown Could Mean Global Bifurcation” is an article published in late December 2025 by Vijay Jayaraj, at the CO₂ Coalition.
Jayaraj argues that 2025 marked a turning point where major energy companies abandoned aggressive “green” commitments, exposing the net-zero energy transition as an unrealistic “fantasy” driven by bureaucracy rather than economics or science.
He concludes that without heavy subsidies, green megaprojects (e.g., carbon capture) are uneconomical, and corporations are prioritizing shareholder returns over ESG pressures.
“Energy Transition Meltdown Could Mean Global Bifurcation” is an article published in late December 2025 by Vijay Jayaraj, at the CO₂ Coalition.
Jayaraj argues that 2025 marked a turning point where major energy companies abandoned aggressive “green” commitments, exposing the net-zero energy transition as an unrealistic “fantasy” driven by bureaucracy rather than economics or science.
He concludes that without heavy subsidies, green megaprojects (e.g., carbon capture) are uneconomical, and corporations are prioritizing shareholder returns over ESG pressures.
History will likely remember 2025 as the year energy corporatists finally stopped pretending there is a climate crisis. For a decade, a bizarre theater of the absurd played out as titans of the oil and gas industry apologized for their core business while pledging allegiance to a “green transition” that existed mostly in the imaginations of Western bureaucrats. But the curtain has seemingly fallen.
ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest energy producers, has slashed $10 billion from its low-carbon investment commitments through 2030. Simultaneously, the company announced that it expects $25 billion in earnings growth from 2024 to 2030 to be powered primarily by increases in oil and gas production, which will push daily output to 5.5 million barrels of oil equivalent by the end of the decade.
This is not a company abandoning climate responsibility but rather at last recognizing what has long been obvious: The path prescribed by the climate industrial complex is economically destructive and operationally impossible – even with massive government subsidies.
For years, the global energy strategy has been surreal. Companies that built the modern world on the back of energy-dense hydrocarbons indulged those celebrating the arrival of wind turbines and solar panels to power civilization. But reality, stubborn and unforgiving, has interrupted the psychedelic revelry.
ExxonMobil’s low-carbon investments will be paced to policy support and customer demand, says the company. That is corporate speak meaning that spending on green projects is paused unless the government – using our tax dollars – subsidizes the risk or until a market exists.
Megaprojects, once heralded as the future, are now in line for deferral. Why? Because without taxpayer handouts, the economics of trying to bury underground a plant food like carbon dioxide simply do not work – and defy common sense.
The energy sector is pivoting from a strategy of “grow clean at all costs” to “returns first, transition last.” “Green” projects are being relegated to a secondary capital bucket – a token for good PR instead of a core activity.
Europe’s Shell and Aker BP and Canada’s Enbridge have withdrawn from the Science Based Targets initiative to establish “science-based emissions reductions.” This was a retreat from what is described as a “credible, science-based net-zero framework” because there was neither credibility nor science. It was a political suicide pact. The energy giants looked at the cliff’s edge and refused to jump.
British multinational BP, having abandoned its promise to go “Beyond Petroleum,” has raised its oil and gas spending and softened its renewable targets.
ENEOS Holdings, a Japanese refiner, has discarded hydrogen production targets, with CEO Tomohide Miyata explaining that “the shift toward a carbon-neutral society appears to be slowing.”
These U-turns represent a renaissance in policy realism. Energy needs do not disappear because politicians make speeches at climate summits or corporations allocate funds to ESG programs or governments attempt to control consumption and choices of appliances and automobiles.
Second thoughts about an inevitably doomed “green” transition is a victory for the single mother in the U.S. trying to budget for winter heating and for the small business owner in the U.K. whose margins are crushed by one of the highest commercial electricity rates in the world. And for the billions of people in developing nations, this pivot could be salvation from generational poverty.
The question now is whether governments will recognize what corporations have made clear: that the energy transition was a fantasy infused with scientific language and draped in moralistic gingerbread. Or will they continue to increase subsidies and regulations?
Very likely, there will be a bifurcation: on the one hand, western bureaucracies, particularly in Europe, continuing an economic decline under mandates and taxes, and on the other, pragmatic governments, many of them in Asia, pursuing prosperity with fuels and technologies that work.
This commentary was first published by Daily Calleron December 25, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
What’s New!
The CO2 Coalition has released its new episode of the Climate DebriefPodcast featuring Jules de Waart (Part 1). Watch the full video here!
The phrase “Fossil Fuels Are Not Going Away: Why the Boulder Climate Case Is So Dangerous and SCOTUS Must Step In” is the title of a January 2026 article published on RealClearEnergy.
A high-profile climate lawsuit threatens reliable energy supplies.
The phrase “Fossil Fuels Are Not Going Away: Why the Boulder Climate Case Is So Dangerous and SCOTUS Must Step In” is the title of a January 2026 article published on RealClearEnergy.
A high-profile climate lawsuit threatens reliable energy supplies.
Just like fossil fuel divestment, climate court cases to punish fossil fuel (oil, coal, natural gas) producers do not work, and they should be rejected by climate change advocates themselves.
The allegation is that fossil fuel companies misrepresented the impacts of their products and caused untold billions of dollars in climate and weather damages.
Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels have built the world around us, giving us living standards our ancestors could have only dreamed about.
The first step for “climate action” is obviously to cut into our fossil fuel demand, not punish producers, now an even more vital fact since the AI revolution is meaning loads more electricity needed (coal and gas generate 60-65% of U.S. power).
Indeed, despite decades of trying, even less fossil fuels is seemingly impossible: U.S. demand for fossil fuels continues to rise (see natural gas) or remain “buoyantly very high” (see oil).
This is hardly surprising because oil has no substitute (the electric car failure is now undeniable) and natural gas is affordable, clean, abundant, and flexible to backup naturally intermittent wind and solar.
Globally, growth in renewable energy production is nowhere near meeting growth in overall energy demand, let alone displacing fossil fuels.
Economic dislocation and destruction are the clear result of punishing suppliers of natural resources that meet 80% of our energy needs: oil, coal, and natural gas.
You sue an oil company, that company is liable and must then pass costs of that liability onto the people buying its products; i.e., higher fossil fuel prices mean higher input costs for everything that we do, so the price of everything goes up.
Power the Future’s December 2025 report: “How Environmentalism Activism Raises Prices on Everyday Goods.”
As we continue to see in Blue States, where increasingly stricter climate and CO2 emission reduction policies outweigh all other economic and common-sense considerations, higher energy prices appear to be the goal: “High Electricity Prices Are a Choice Blue States Make Every Day.”
Artificially increasing the prices of fossil fuels to force the switch to renewables is a regressive tax that hurts poor Americans and communities of color the most.
Oil & Gas Are Becoming More Important, Not Less
The harsh reality for some is that just a few years ago oil and gas accounted for about 68% of U.S. energy supply, and even after President Biden’s term, i.e., the “most climate conscious administration in American history,” oil and gas HAVE GAINED market share in our energy supply (see graphic below).
And while we remain hopeful for nuclear, big nuclear projects have immense cost overruns, and we are still seeking our first commercial Small Modular Reactor, with the HOPE that they will arrive sometime in the 2030s.
Even a non-fracking state like California, the “greenest” state in the country who has had a Renewable Portfolio Standard for over 20 years to “get off” natural gas, can still be more dependent on gas than fracking giant Texas since natural intermittency makes wind and solar more “supplemental” than “alternative” (see graphic below).
The Climate Case in Colorado
This gets us to the vital climate case in our 4th most important oil-producing state and 8th for natural gas.
Plaintiffs: City of Boulder & Boulder County, Colorado: Defendants: ExxonMobil & Suncor Energy.
Taking place in Colorado itself, just like the rest of these cases, defies common sense.
Oil and gas can contribute nearly $50 billion a year to the state’s economy and meet the bulk of energy needs.
Even coal still generates 28-35% of the state’s power, double the national average.
For these climate cases, coastal litigants focus on things like hurricanes and rising seas, but in Boulder, the 105-page complaint argues that oil companies have harmed property, safety, and health.
They say that this comes from causing higher temperatures, wildfires, droughts, and a shrinking snowpack that devastates water supplies, skiing resorts, and farmers.
They want billions of dollars to compensate jurisdictions for all the damage caused by the use of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Exxon and Suncor say that the Boulder climate case raises complicated national and international issues, so this is a fight that belongs in federal, not state courts.
Of course, they are correct.
Boulder ignores that climate change by very definition is a global issue, which is exactly why claiming climate change “benefits” from energy-climate policies only put forth here in the U.S. is as anti-science as it gets.
What happened to: “We believe in science!”?
This past May, the Colorado Supreme Court finally ruled that the lawsuit could indeed proceed in state court.
Now, Exxon and Suncor have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to review the case, while Boulder argues against that.
SCOTUS is considering whether to grant the petition for certiorari (to hear the case), in what would be a decision that would determine if they will weigh in on this major climate liability fight.
The SCOTUS decision could set a national precedent for climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel producers, which is about the last thing we need at this time (some models have U.S. electricity demand exploding 80% over the next 25 years).
SCOTUS should step in and establish a uniform rule that can be applied consistently when these climate cases are brought.
Climate Litigation Is Surely Not the Answer
Energy-climate policy solutions must come from Congress and federal agencies, not state courtrooms.
Former Climate Czar John Kerry himself has made clear: 1) that reducing emissions is a matter of embracing constantly evolving technologies, not bringing lawsuits in court and 2) the U.S. importance globally on climate change is obviously shrinking because still developing poor countries are just compensating for any reductions in our emissions.
“We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” John Kerry proclaimed in January 2021.
Climate litigation like Boulder is the exact opposite of making progress and the ultimate shoot yourself in the foot energy-climate thinking that Americans rejected when all seven battleground states voted for President Trump for a second time in November 2024.
Especially as we export soaring amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas (all supported by Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump), we must be energy-climate practical, or we risk letting Russia, OPEC, and China control global energy markets.
Renewables have a very important role to play in our massive energy complex, but using climate change to sue the fossil fuel companies that offer us the energy resources that meet 80% of our energy supply is stupid, dangerous, and a waste of precious resources.
In the UK specifically, EV sales reached about 23% of new cars in 2025, below the government’s 28% mandate target, prompting criticism and expectations of further policy adjustments.
In the UK specifically, EV sales reached about 23% of new cars in 2025, below the government’s 28% mandate target, prompting criticism and expectations of further policy adjustments.
And the sales they did make were inflated by “unsustainable” discounts costing the country over £5 BILLION… and none of this will make any difference whatsoever to the planet’s climate, just sayin’…
EV sales have fallen even further below government targets, accounting for 23.43% last year, against a target of 28%, a shortfall of 92397.
The deficit in 2024 was 47641, making a cumulative total of 140,038. Manufacturers will have to pay fines of £15000 for every car they fall short of their EV target or buy certificates from those who exceeded them. There are certain allowances for manufacturers who have beaten their emissions targets in recent years, but these are minor.
But ignoring these allowances, the motor industry faces fines of £2.1 billion already. They can carry forward any deficits in the hope that they have surpluses in future years, but is something that is extremely unlikely, given the ramping up of ZEV targets in the next four years:
This video is a good summary:
£5 billion of discounts, £11000 per car, is obviously unsustainable. But the alternative of paying a £15000 fine is equally unsustainable.
Meanwhile it will be Tesla and the Chinese who will make billions from selling their ZEV surplus certificates to the highest bidders.
The two biggest EV sellers are Tesla and BYD, with EV sales of 45000 and 51000 respectively. Their combined “surplus” equates to 69000, worth £10 billion at £15000 a pop.
With the overall market in deficit, demand for these certificates will exceed supply, so the market price for them will be close to £15000.
Hands up who thought it would be a good idea to fine British carmakers and hand the money over to China?
Mike Hawes to bring forward the 2027 review. Sorry Mike, but there is only one solution – scrap the whole ZEV mandate now and distribute free certificates to any carmaker who is already in deficit.
The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) calculates the average net present cost of electricity generation over a plant’s lifetime, divided by the total energy produced (in $/MWh). It provides a straightforward way to compare the direct costs of different technologies, such as capital, operations, maintenance, and fuel. Historically, it has been valuable for tracking technology cost declines- e.g., solar PV and onshore wind now often have the lowest LCOE globally compared to new fossil fuel plants.
The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) calculates the average net present cost of electricity generation over a plant’s lifetime, divided by the total energy produced (in $/MWh). It provides a straightforward way to compare the direct costs of different technologies, such as capital, operations, maintenance, and fuel.
Historically, it has been valuable for tracking technology cost declines- e.g., solar PV and onshore wind now often have the lowest LCOE globally compared to new fossil fuel plants.
“The LCOE narrative has just collided with reality. If ‘cheap’ solar and wind really were enough, the energy transition would largely run on autopilot. Emissions would fall. Subsidies wouldn’t be needed. Electricity would get cheaper. None of that is happening.” – Jonas Kristiansen Nøland, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (below)
Noncompetitive energies need studies; competitive energies need markets. This insight deserves to become an adage in today’s contentious debates over relative costs for electric generation. This is particularly true for levelized cost of energy (LCOE) studies purporting to show that wind and solar generation is competitive with thermal generation from oil, gas, and coal.
The most recent attempt is by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), titled “91 Percent of New Renewable Projects Now Cheaper Than Fossil Fuel Alternatives” (July 2025). And the fix was in with a study purporting to justify “accelerat[ing] the deployment of renewables-based energy transitions worldwide.”[1]
The LCOE narrative has just collided with reality. If “cheap” solar and wind really were enough, the energy transition would largely run on autopilot. Emissions would fall. Subsidies wouldn’t be needed. Electricity would get cheaper. None of that is happening.
Fossil energy use is still increasing, not decreasing. Electricity prices in low-LCOE-dominated electricity systems are rising, not falling.
Why? Because LCOE was never designed for weather-dependent electricity systems. Historically, LCOE was used by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to plan electricity systems based on firm, dispatchable generation fueled by non-weather-dependent resources.
Today, the same metric is used to justify electricity systems dominated by variable energy sources that require backup, reserves, ancillary services, and flexibility assets — costs LCOE simply ignores. The result? Low-LCOE power ≠ low-cost electricity.
This is exactly why a new UNECE report [United Nations Economic Commission for Europe] now calls for abandoning LCOE as a planning tool and replacing it with full system cost of electricity (FSCOE). System costs matter. Reliability matters. Physics still matters.
Curious to hear: Should LCOE finally be retired from energy policy?
Yes, it is time for LCOE to be demoted for energy policy-making. Pronto! And many of the 150+ comments agreed.
————————
[1] The About section reads:
IRENA is a lead global intergovernmental agency for energy transformation that serves as the principal platform for international cooperation, supports countries in their energy transitions, and provides state of the art data and analyses on technology, innovation, policy, finance and investment. IRENA drives the widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy, including bioenergy, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, solar and wind energy in the pursuit of sustainable development, energy access, and energy security, for economic and social resilience and prosperity and a climate-proof future.
IRENA’s membership comprises 170 countries and the EU. Together, they decide on the Agency’s strategic direction and programmatic activities, in line with the global energy discourse and priorities to accelerate the deployment of renewables-based energy transitions worldwide.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.