When It Comes to Climate and Energy, Let’s Retire the Politics of Fear

In the latest example of the scare tactics favored by climate change alarmists, it was announced last month that 2025 “was the third-warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service,” as reported by NBC News.

A speaker delivers a speech from a podium in a grand hall, with a large audience of formal attendees seated in rows.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

A polar bear standing on a small iceberg in a turbulent ocean, surrounded by melting ice and floating newspapers about climate change, with a fiery background and an earth-like planet visible in the sky.

In the latest example of the scare tactics favored by climate change alarmists, it was announced last month that 2025 “was the third- warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service,” as reported by NBC News.

The story added, “The conclusion came as no surprise: The past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record, according to Copernicus data. In 2025, the average global temperature was about 1.47 degrees Celsius (2.65 Fahrenheit) higher than from 1850 to 1900 — the period scientists use as a reference point, since it precedes the industrial era in which massive amounts of carbon pollution have been pumped into the atmosphere.”

As usual, our most affordable and reliable fuel sources were blamed.

“The primary reason for these record temperatures is the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, dominated by the burning of fossil fuels,” according to Samantha Burgess, the “strategic lead on climate” for the European Centre for Medium- Range Weather Forecasts, which operates Copernicus, according to the report.

Sometimes it feels like the climate change crusaders are oblivious to everything going on around them. For decades, they’ve been resorting to the same tired strategies to convince us that doom and gloom are just around the corner if we don’t change our ways. What they ignore is that their tactics aren’t working – more people than ever are tuning them out.

Americans in particular have grown wise to the predictions that don’t come true and the demands that don’t make sense. In fact, so badly has science become blatantly politicized that the number of people who have a great amount of trust in science keeps shrinking.

That fact was backed up by a recent Pew Research Center report that found that “Americans’ confidence in scientists remains lower than it was prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.” To many of us, it is now obvious that the inconsistent guidance on Covid and many pandemic edicts that were later found to be ineffective and even misleading demonstrated that science was not above being overtly politicized.

While the Pew study noted a Democrat-Republican disparagement regarding trust in science (Democrats trust it more, Republicans less), only 28 percent of all U.S. adults said they have “a great deal” of confidence in scientists “to act in the public’s best interest.”

I recently noted the welcome admission by manmade climate change believer Noah Kauffman, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, who, writing for The Atlantic, said flatly that “the full effects of climate change are unknowable, and a more constructive public discussion about climate policy will require getting more comfortable with that.” Whether in regard to vaccines, dietary guidelines or climate change, in recent years science has too often found itself at the center of partisan political debates and lost the trust of many Americans by appearing to support certain causes over others based on ideology rather than pure scientific data.

But we can’t afford to let that happen when it comes to making energy decisions. Why? Because no one can deny that affordable energy is the key to economic prosperity for American households and businesses.

When energy costs are low, manufacturers can produce goods at a lower cost, resulting in more competitive products domestically and internationally.

When fuel is affordable – whether diesel, gasoline or jet fuel – all modes of transportation, including airlines, trucking and shipping companies, can charge less, resulting in savings for all consumers.

Heating, cooling and transportation costs represent the most significant share of most families’ budgets. When energy costs are reasonable, household spending on other goods and services increases, not only helping individual families but contributing to overall economic growth.

In addition to everything else, there is real damage caused by manipulating science in a way that puts climate over people. It puts people in danger and keeps them in poverty – and ultimately only a privileged few will benefit.

Consider the billions the Biden Administration doled out to political cronies on its way out the door in the name of the climate cause. Consider also the Obama Administration giving a half billion dollars to Solyndra, the solar panel company accused of engaging in “a pattern of false and misleading assertions,” only to see it go bust – all at the expense of hardworking, taxpaying Americans.

That’s why it’s important to remove the manipulation of the energy sector from the politicization that has infiltrated the scientific community. Americans should not be pawns in the effort to frighten our people or our government into abandoning our most reliable, affordable and increasingly clean energy sources.

There’s a better way. By passing the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Act (ARC-ES), Congress can codify into law the guarantee that Americans will always have access to low-cost energy, regardless of the effort of progressive political groups to weaponize science in order to funnel tax dollars to prop up “alternatives.”

Anyone can manipulate data to come up with horrifying “what if” scenarios designed to frighten or intimidate people into making their preferred choices. That’s not how to make public policy. We need to pass ARC-ES to move past the days when the science that fewer people trust is manipulated to justify changes in energy policy that few people want. When it comes to science, let’s trade the politics of panic for the integrity of facts.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

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

Saving the Grid, Not the Slogans: Trump Halts Dam Demolition

In a long-overdue course correction, President Trump has pulled the plug on one of the Biden administration’s more outlandish energy-environment stunts—the so-called Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. Heralded by green activists and their political patrons as a bold step for salmon recovery and “climate justice,” the agreement was, in fact, a $1 billion bureaucratic boondoggle that prioritized speculative ecological fears over the concrete energy, economic, and strategic needs of millions of Americans.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

In a long-overdue course correction, President Trump has pulled the plug on one of the Biden administration’s more outlandish energy-environment stunts—the so-called Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. Heralded by green activists and their political patrons as a bold step for salmon recovery and “climate justice,” the agreement was, in fact, a $1 billion bureaucratic boondoggle that prioritized speculative ecological fears over the concrete energy, economic, and strategic needs of millions of Americans.

“I have worked for more than 30 years to protect the irreplaceable Columbia River hydropower electrical system. The Biden Administration did its best to initiate the destruction of that system through improper manipulation of environmental laws and policies. This manipulation was reflected in a memorandum of understanding. Thankfully, President Trump has revoked the Biden Administration’s “Restoring Healthy and Abundant Salmon, Steelhead, and Other Native Fish Populations in the Columbia River Basin” Memorandum. This was exactly the right thing to do and provides a foundation for protection of the Four Lower Snake River dams. The President’s order is totally consistent with our nation’s fight to win the race for artificial intelligence, superiority, and energy dominance. The people of nation and especially the rate payers of the Northwest are incredibly grateful for this action.”

U.S. Representative Cliff Bentz (OR-02)

The plan’s centerpiece? The eventual removal of four major hydroelectric dams on the Snake River—Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Lower Granite. These aren’t rickety relics of a bygone era. These are robust energy producers churning out more than 3,000 megawatts of clean, reliable hydroelectric power—enough to electrify 2.5 million homes. They also underpin irrigation systems, enable low-cost grain shipments to global markets, and provide flood control. But in Biden’s reality, all of that was apparently disposable if it meant pleasing a few vocal environmental lobbies and checking another box on the Net Zero checklist.

To sell this demolition job, the administration leaned heavily on emotional appeals about salmon runs and tribal rights, while offering precious little in terms of clear, causal science. As usual, the numbers tell a less convenient story. Salmon populations in the Columbia Basin have been under pressure from numerous factors for over a century: overfishing, ocean conditions, predation, and pollution—not just dams. Yet in the media spin cycle, four hydroelectric facilities became scapegoats for a problem that is far more complex than activists care to admit.

That didn’t stop Biden’s team from pressing forward with a top-down, $1 billion effort, framed as a multi-stakeholder “consensus.” In truth, it was little more than the latest chapter in the green technocrat playbook: make sweeping promises, ignore economic consequences, and paper over objections from the majority who would be stuck with the bill.

President Trump’s June 12 memorandum brought long-overdue sanity back into the picture. As the White House explained, the move “revokes radical environmental orders that could risk energy security and agriculture for the sake of speculative climate change concerns.” That’s not hyperbole. It’s a concise summary of the cost-benefit imbalance plaguing most modern climate policy.

Environmental groups immediately cried foul, decrying the revocation as a betrayal of salmon and tribal rights. But one must ask: since when did dam demolition become a prerequisite for honoring treaty obligations? The federal government has ample tools at its disposal to support tribal communities and ecological restoration—none of which require gutting the energy backbone of the Pacific Northwest.

“The Snake River Dams have been tremendous assets to the Pacific Northwest for decades, providing high-value electricity to millions of American families and businesses. With this action, President Trump is bringing back common sense, reversing the dangerous and costly energy subtraction policies pursued by the last administration. American taxpayer dollars will not be spent dismantling critical infrastructure, reducing our energy-generating capacity or on radical nonsense policies that dramatically raise prices on the American people.”

Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright

What the climate policy evangelists routinely ignore—perhaps willfully—is the indispensable role these dams play in stabilizing the very electric grid they so desperately want to “decarbonize.” While their eyes remain glued to spreadsheets full of levelized cost of energy figures and computer-modeled salmon migrations, the laws of physics quietly keep the lights on.

Hydroelectric dams don’t just generate electricity; they provide inertia—a foundational property of any stable power grid. Inertia refers to the resistance of the grid to sudden changes in frequency. When a major load drops off or generation falters, it’s the spinning mass of turbines in hydro plants that helps absorb the shock and prevent cascading blackouts. Without inertia, you don’t just lose power—you risk catastrophic grid failure.

Unlike intermittent sources such as wind and solar—which must be propped up by batteries, peaker plants, or magical thinking—hydro dams supply electricity with near-instantaneous responsiveness. When demand spikes or a transmission line falters, hydro units can ramp up or down within seconds. They act as the grid’s shock absorbers and throttle controls. Remove them, and you’re not just reducing capacity; you’re gutting the system’s operational backbone.

Consider the Pacific Northwest, where these dams serve as the beating heart of a regional power grid that spans multiple states and interties with California and Canada. Take those dams offline, and suddenly every renewable energy forecast in the region becomes a high-stakes gamble. You can’t balance a modern grid on spreadsheets and solar panels alone. Someone, somewhere, has to keep the electrons flowing now—not ten minutes from now when the wind decides to pick up.

“President Trump’s announcement smartly helps preserve affordable, reliable electricity for families and businesses across the Pacific Northwest,” Matheson said. “Hydroelectric power is the reason the lights stay on in the region. And as demand for electricity surges across the nation, preserving access to always-available energy resources like hydropower is absolutely crucial. We appreciate the administration’s continuing commitment to smart energy policies and unleashing American energy.”

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Jim Matheson, CEO

The Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement had no credible plan for replacing this critical function. It offered vague gestures at new clean energy investments, which is shorthand for more subsidies to solar developers and consultants who’ve never had to keep a grid stable through an ice storm. The idea that we can simply swap out inertia-rich hydro plants for battery banks and hope for the best is not just naive—it’s reckless.

Yet this kind of reckless planning is endemic in climate policy circles, where energy is treated as a public relations problem instead of a complex, physical system. Politicians promise transformation without understanding thermodynamics. Activists chant slogans about “saving the salmon” while remaining blissfully unaware of how real-time balancing works in a high-voltage network.

President Trump’s decision to preserve these dams isn’t just a win for common sense—it’s a defense of operational integrity in our power systems. It reflects an understanding that energy policy cannot be governed by sentimentality, nor dictated by activist coalitions that mistake complexity for conspiracy.

The Columbia River Basin remains a vital artery for America’s energy and agricultural future. To gamble that away on the basis of activist pressure and incomplete science would be not just foolish, but dangerous. For once, a president has drawn a line—and the country will be stronger for it.

Arlington County, Virginia, deer management plan should include archery hunting

In Episode 375 of District of Conservation, Gabriella analyzes two stories. First, the Department of Education’s latest policy defunding school archery and hunting programs using the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” Second, the brewing Arlington County deer war over whether or not to manage this Northern Virginia town’s overpopulated deer population.

From CFACT

By Gabriella Hoffman 

“AWLA states that “that hunting deer can negatively impact other animals such as snakes, salamanders, amphibians, and many invertebrates.” Not true. All the evidence, including numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies, shows the exact opposite: Deer overpopulation has devastating effects on the songbirds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and other creatures that depend upon the understory habitat that overpopulations of deer destroy.” — Arlington County Forestry and Natural Resources Commission

In Episode 375 of District of Conservation, Gabriella analyzes two stories. First, the Department of Education’s latest policy defunding school archery and hunting programs using the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” Second, the brewing Arlington County deer war over whether or not to manage this Northern Virginia town’s overpopulated deer population.

Tune in to learn more. 

Listen on Apple Podcasts

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

In Episode 579 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the permitting reform bill – aka BAAJA – that is gaining traction in Congress now. The Senate will hold a cloture vote starting at 3:30pm ET in a motion to proceed. Gabriella discusses the status quo without permitting reform, how BAAJA is good for the environment and affordability. Tune in!SHOW NOTESBipartisan Policy Center: BAAJA ExplainerEstimating the US Energy System Impacts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
  1. EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust
  2. EP 578: Midterms, CO Amendment 83, Disneyland Goes Electric
  3. EP 577: Kaylyn Glenn – Florida Gladeswoman & Conservationist
  4. EP 576: Chiricahua National Park & Energy Security Index
  5. EP 575: Menhaden Madness (ft. Whit Fosburgh, Forage Fish Campaign)

SHOW NOTES

Biden admin withholding key funding for schools with hunting, archery programs

BSCA Guidance Published Nov. 2022

Thanks to Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, DOE Defunds School Archery Programs

H.R.5110, the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act

Foxx Co-Leads Letter to Education Secretary Cardona Condemning Department of Education Decision to Eliminate Funding For Archery and Hunter Education Classes

NASP

Arlington Deer Management Project

ARL Now: Animal agency, county commission at odds over deer claims

⁠FNRC Letter Calling for Deer Management in Arlington County ⁠

Virginia Deer Management Program

Photo Credit: Gabriella Hoffman / July 2018

Author


Gabriella Hoffman

Gabriella Hoffman is a Media Strategist and Award-Winning Outdoor Writer.

She hosts the “District of Conservation” podcast and CFACT’s original YouTube series “Conservation Nation.”

Learn more about her work at http://www.gabriellahoffman.com