Tag: Climate Group

The Decline of Climate Week NYC Shows the Net Zero Dream is Dying

Yet the guest list tells a different story: only three heads of state of relatively minor countries — Kenya’s President William Ruto, the Bahamas’ Prime Minister Philip Davis and Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Gaston Browne — are confirmed. This is a far cry from the global heavyweight presence one might expect. The unelected Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission and Brussels’s chief green cheerleader, is also expected to attend.

A vibrant autumn scene in Central Park, New York City, showcasing colorful trees with red and orange foliage against a backdrop of iconic skyscrapers, including the Empire State Building.

From Tilak´s Substack

By Tilak Doshi

A panoramic view of New York City skyline featuring the Empire State Building, with text overlay promoting Climate Week NYC.

As New York City hosts Climate Week NYC and the Global Renewables Summit 2025 this week with much fanfare, the absence of major global leaders at these events speaks volumes. Dubbed by its organisers as “the world’s largest climate event” alongside the annual UN General Assembly, it boasts over 1,000 events and a theme of ‘Power On’ to rally climate action. Sixteen years after its first ‘climate week’ in 2009, the event is meant to represent a high profile gathering of senior representatives of government, business and NGOs to provide momentum for the upcoming UN climate change conference in Brazil (COP30) in November.

Yet the guest list tells a different story: only three heads of state of relatively minor countries — Kenya’s President William Ruto, the Bahamas’ Prime Minister Philip Davis and Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Gaston Browne — are confirmed. This is a far cry from the global heavyweight presence one might expect. The unelected Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission and Brussels’s chief green cheerleader, is also expected to attend.

Out of a list of 29 confirmed speakers, those representing NGOs constituted almost half of the total. Government representatives represented 28%, academia just over 3% and the rest (17%) represented for-profit businesses. NGO representatives attending the NYC gala were largely funded by the usual Left-wing billionaire foundations such as Bloomberg Philanthropies, Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation, IKEA Foundation, Kellogg Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

New York’s Net Zero Misadventure

This stark contrast between the event’s grandiose rhetoric and its lacklustre political turnout signals a deeper truth – the global Net Zero movement is losing steam.

New York’s own energy missteps mirror a broader retreat from radical climate policies. The state’s Climate Act of 2019 discourages fossil fuels across the board. In the realm of electricity, the Act requires 70% of electricity from “renewables” by 2030 and 100% from “zero emissions” sources by 2040. “Renewables” and “zero emissions” basically mean more wind turbines, solar panels and grid-scale batteries.

New York’s reliance on intermittent renewables — particularly offshore wind — has destabilised its electrical power grid, leading to some of the highest electricity rates in the nation. In 2025, average US city electricity rates hit 19 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), a 46% increase since 2016, with New Yorkers paying even steeper bills, at 31 cents per kWh.

The Democrat-run state government has long opposed the development of natural gas infrastructure – even as New York sits within easy reach of the Marcellus and Utica shale basins, which hold some of the world’s cheapest and most abundant natural gas. State authorities have spent years blocking pipeline projects that could have brought reliable, low-cost energy to millions of households. Instead, the state imports liquefied natural gas (LNG) at high costs from Trinidad and Tobago and Canada to meet regional energy demand of the US Northeast.

According to Francis Menton, a keen observer of the state’s energy affairs,

More than halfway to the 2030 deadline, the progress toward the 70% renewable electricity goal has actually been negative (due to the premature closure of two large nuclear power plants). On the natural gas front, two big pipeline projects have been blocked by the state environmental regulator (DEC) on phony grounds of ‘water quality’. And meanwhile there are plans for big new electricity consumers (chip plants and data centres) in the upstate area.

As ordinary residents bear the brunt of soaring power prices, policymakers are quietly backpedalling on the very climate commitments once heralded as moral imperatives. The reality of high energy costs, unreliable grids and public pushback is forcing a reckoning, not just in New York but across other Left-progressive states and regions like California and the European Union.

In California, Sacramento lawmakers are now being forced into a messy compromise to ease restrictions on oil drilling in the face of mounting public anger over gasoline and power prices. After years of cracking down on California’s oil industry, Governor Gavin Newsom and the Democrat legislature in a complete about-turn passed bills to get Kern County oil wells pumping again to avoid soaring gasoline prices. In the EU, it was reported last week that member states such as France and Poland are openly rebelling against Brussels’s 2035 climate diktats ahead of COP30.

The irony is stark. A state surrounded by shale gas fields has chosen to import LNG at high cost and bet on wind farms that struggle to deliver consistent power, leaving residents and businesses to foot the bill. This policy dogma is unravelling. Governor Kathy Hochul, a staunch advocate of wind energy, is now exploring nuclear options as offshore wind projects falter. Two major gas pipeline that were rejected in 2020 are now being reconsidered, a tacit admission that green policies have driven energy costs to unsustainable levels.

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) has championed renewables, yet the state’s grid reliability remains precarious, with warnings of blackouts looming as demand from AI data centres surges. New York’s energy reality mirrors a broader trend – the collision of ideological climate goals with the practical need for affordable, reliable power.

The Global Climate Agenda’s Waning Momentum

Climate Week NYC’s lack of high-profile global leaders is not an anomaly but a symptom of a broader shift. The event, meant to set the stage for COP30 in Belém, Brazil, struggles to maintain its clout. While the Climate Group touts “record government engagement” with over 1,000 events, the absence of leaders from major economies like the US, China, India or key EU nations is revealing. Reuters, a newswire which cheerleads Net Zero policies, acknowledges a “Trump chill factor” dampening enthusiasm, despite former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres framing the event’s turnout as hugely enthusiastic and a positive reaction to US policy shifts.

Globally, the Net Zero agenda is faltering and the tide is turning against it. As one leading critic of the green agenda put it, “even the New York Times, ‘Masthead for the Blob’, is lamenting the collapse of the Paris Agreement hopes and dreams”. Anthony Watts, the founder of the leading climate contrarian blog Watts Up With That? observes that things must have become so self-evident when even David Wallace-Wells, the self-professed chief chronicler of ‘climate catastrophe’ for the New York Times, admits “what has long been obvious to anyone outside the climate activist bubble: the age of Paris is over, and the world has lost its appetite for climate politics”.

COP30 Implications: A Pivot to Pragmatism?

As Climate Week NYC sets the stage for COP30, the event’s shortcomings foreshadow challenges for the Brazil climate conference. COP30 aims to strengthen Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and secure climate finance for vulnerable nations, but the tepid political engagement in New York suggests a lack of global consensus. The ‘Power On’ theme, meant to inspire action, feels hollow when major economies prioritise energy security over emissions targets. President Trump’s far-reaching energy counter-revolution, which took the US out of the Paris Agreement and seeks ‘energy dominance’ based on fossil fuels suggests that COP30 will be sorely lacking in international commitments to Net Zero policy targets.

New York’s backpedalling offers a glimpse into COP30’s potential trajectory. Climate Week NYC 2025, with its parade of NGO talking heads and sparse political heavyweights, encapsulates the Net Zero movement’s crossroads. New York’s energy woes — high prices, grid instability, threats of blackouts — reflect a broader global reckoning and a retreat from renewables dogma. The state’s flirtation with nuclear and gas pipelines, like California’s softened oil policies and the EU’s wavering 2035 targets, signals a shift toward pragmatism. The path forward requires acknowledging that energy reliability and affordability are non-negotiable.

New York City’s Climate Week echo chamber, dominated by well-funded NGOs, ignores these realities, preaching to a choir increasingly drowned out by public discontent. COP30 must move beyond symbolic gestures and address the economic fallout of Net Zero policies or risk further irrelevance.

This article was first published in The Daily Sceptic ( https://dailysceptic.org/2025/09/24/the-decline-of-climate-week-nyc-shows-the-net-zero-dream-is-dying/ )

Progressive climate group Sunrise Movement says Biden should ‘pass the torch’

The Sunrise Movement, a progressive, youth-led climate group, is calling on President Biden to step aside from the 2024 race after his abysmal debate performance spurred Democratic anxiety about his ability to beat former President Trump.

From Climate Depot

By Marc Morano

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4768709-sunrise-movement-climate-change-green-groups-biden-2024

BY RACHEL FRAZIN

The Sunrise Movement, a progressive, youth-led climate group, is calling on President Biden to step aside from the 2024 race after his abysmal debate performance spurred Democratic anxiety about his ability to beat former President Trump.

“To young people: losing this election could alter the rest of our lives,” Sunrise Movement Executive Director Aru Shiney-Ajay said in a written statement.

“Joe Biden’s next climate legacy-defining act must be to pass the torch to a new nominee,” Shiney-Ajay added.

The statement appears to make Sunrise the first major climate or environmental advocacy group to publicly call for Biden to step down.

It also represents a rare break from some of the group’s top political allies, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), both of whom are backing Biden despite calls from other Democrats for him to drop out.

More than a dozen Democratic members of Congress have publicly called on Biden to withdraw from the race.

The Sunrise Movement has been withholding a formal endorsement from Biden. While the group has backed a number of the president’s climate policies, it has said he should go even further, including by declaring a national climate emergency.

Programming Judges for Woke Climate Rulings

With Enlightenment came secularism, with secularism came relativism, with relativism came leftism, and with leftism comes judicial activism.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Olivia Murray reports at American Thinker America’s judiciary is quietly receiving ‘training’ from leftwing climate group.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

With Enlightenment came secularism, with secularism came relativism, with relativism came leftism, and with leftism comes judicial activism. No longer are Western courts viewed as a place of arbitration based upon absolute Judeo-Christian morality and standards of justice, but a vehicle to enact revolutionary change, where fairness and righteousness are in the eye of the executor.

According to a new report published by Fox News today, America’s judiciary has been quietly receiving climate change arbitration “training” from  a “little-known judicial advocacy organization” financed by “left-wing nonprofits.” Here are the details, from the article itself:

The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Law Institute (ELI) created the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) in 2018, establishing a first-of-its-kind resource to provide ‘reliable, up-to-date information’ about climate change litigation, according to the group. The project’s reach has extended to various state and federal courts, including powerful appellate courts….

Climate activists protesting outside the Supreme Court July 1, 2022 after the court announced its decision in West Virginia v. EPA. Francis Chung/E&E News/POLITICO

When you have a group of people who don’t believe in the foundational values of America, this is what you get—a covert operation to transform what ought to be an unbiased and nonpartisan apparatus into a biased and partisan one. When the courts become an instrument to advance an agenda, it is a serious infringement on the right of a person or party to an impartial arbiter and the development is, naturally, alarming. When judicial minds receive “quiet training” in pseudo-science to ensure “climate justice” and “equity” are taken into consideration the threat of prejudiced decisions increases, and unconstitutional laws, and bureaucratic rules and mandates become “legal” despite any fact, reason, or authority to support their implementation.

Fox also reports that in just five years, the CJP “has crafted 13 curriculum modules” and hosted dozens of events—all in all, “more than 1,700 judges” have participated in CJP’s “training” scheme.

From ELI’s website on its CJP, we find this:As the body of climate litigation grows, judges must consider complex scientific and legal questions, many of which are developing rapidly. To address these issues, the Climate Judiciary Project of the Environmental Law Institute is collaborating with leading national judicial education institutions to meet judges’ need for basic familiarity with climate science methods and concepts.Now this isn’t a great analogy because certain sciences are settled—embryology establishes that life begins at conception, ultrasounds unequivocally determine that babies in the womb are actually living human beings, and biological reality aligns with the real reality of two sexes (everything else is mental illness), etc.—but how would the left handle a pro-life nonprofit being a very real presence in law schools, presenting its curriculum as objective (even though it actually would be) and the institution requiring its students to take the course? Or, a Christian outfit, asserting that humans are not gendered but sexed? Obviously, the useful idiots would lose their collective mind.

I wonder how we can expect those gas stove rulings to go? What about when the tyrannical government imposes a “carbon emissions” limit on all American subjects? And when the federal bureaucracy takes away the heating and cooling elements in our home? What happens if legislators dictate that grocery store chains can only sell a limited amount of beef—or, none at all?

Will these illegal actions be upheld? Well, presumably yes,
because a “trained” judiciary will be right there to rule the “right” way.

Background 

Critical Climate Intelligence for Jurists (and others)

Put That Light Out!

How many environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb?

Climate Scepticism

BY MARK HODGSON

I have lost count of the number of times the Law of Unintended Consequences has kicked in where climate change mitigation measures are concerned. Today’s example has been known about for a while, but an Observer/Guardian article has drawn it to my attention again, so let’s take a look.

The Climate Group is one of many “green” pressure groups, which seek to impose its own vision on the rest of us. Its “about” page tells us that it is an “international non-profit” founded twenty years ago, with offices in London, New York, New Delhi, Amsterdam and Beijing (non-profit obviously does not necessarily equate to being poor). They claim to work closely with state and regional governments, and they spout the usual stuff about the need to reduce carbon emissions (by 50% in the next ten years), the 2020s having to be “the Climate Decade”, the necessity of capping global warming at 1.5C, etc., etc.

We are told (elsewhere on their website) that in 2015 they launched “a global call to action for all public lighting around the world to be light emitting diode (LED) by 2025”. This campaign was undertaken in partnership with Signify (formerly Philips Lighting) who, by happy coincidence, presumably stood to gain financially if the campaign achieved its objectives. The purpose (apart from making lots of money for Signify) was to reduce CO2 emissions, because LED lights use less energy than their predecessors.

Four years after the campaign was launched, the Engineering and Technology website supplied an update regarding the state of play with UK Councils. We learned that Councils were moving rapidly towards LED lighting, but that the cost of installation was putting some off. The 2025 target date was implicit in the report. Certainly, my own Council replaced our street lamps with new LED lighting some time ago.

Two years later the BBC was still reporting enthusiastically on the “progress” being made: “Essex County Council leader makes LED street lights pledge”. We learned that they were spending (the BBC called it “investing” – note for editors: costs associated with the net zero programme are never to be described as costs, but always as investments) £26.8 million on the programme, and a target date of 2024 for completion of the project. Within a year the BBC was again reporting about Essex County Council, this time with regard to the £100 million budget deficit it would be facing within three years. Hey ho.

That wasn’t the only irony to be spotted in BBC reporting of these issues. Just a few months after its enthusiastic report about Essex County Council’s ambitious plans for LED street lighting, the BBC reported again (“Light pollution from street lamps linked to insect loss”) on the subject. This time the story wasn’t quite so positive

Scientists say light pollution may be contributing to “worrying” declines in insects seen in recent decades.

In a UK study, artificial street lights were found to disrupt the behaviour of nocturnal moths, reducing caterpillars numbers by half.

Modern LED streetlights appeared to have the biggest impact.

Which brings us to today’s report in the Observer on the website it shares with is sister paper, the Guardian: “How blue-rich LEDs harm people and the environment”. Now we are told:

The rush to transition to LED lighting resulted in a botched job: councils throughout the UK installed light in our public buildings and spaces, and in our streets, that was far too intense and contained too much blue light. This is precisely the wavelength of light that most disrupts the circadian rhythm –not just sleep but almost every other physiological process – in humans and the rest of the natural world.

A study by Dark Sky International summarises the available science on light pollution. It questions whether the transition to LED street lighting provides any meaningful environmental benefit, and talks of “greenwash”. There’s no doubt about the harm caused to the overall health and wellbeing of people, with the lives of light-sensitive people being devastated, and by the disruption of natural ecosystems. It has also exacerbated light pollution due to the way blue light scatters and creates more “sky glow” – the smudgy veil of artificial light that obscures the stars.

Blue-rich LEDs have made our world uglier, changing the colour of our towns and cities from a soft orange glow to a harsh, gloomy glare. Light doesn’t just illuminate our surroundings, it creates the very world that we perceive and interacts with life in profound and subtle ways. We need to use it with great care and caution.

“Great care and caution”. Words which, all too sadly, don’t seem to apply where someone claims greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced, and certainly not if there’s money to be made by the climate-industrial complex. Will we ever learn?