G7 Climate Realism Signals Policy Progress

The June G7 Summit in Évian-les-Bains, France, marked a major pivot. Driven by severe energy and commodity shocks stemming from the conflict in the Middle East—specifically transit disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz—G7 leaders overwhelmingly prioritized energy security, price insulation, and survival of the fossil fuel supply chain over aggressive timelines for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

From CO2 Coalition

By Vijay Jayaraj

The June G7 Summit in Évian-les-Bains, France, marked a major pivot. Driven by severe energy and commodity shocks stemming from the conflict in the Middle East—specifically transit disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz—G7 leaders overwhelmingly prioritized energy security, price insulation, and survival of the fossil fuel supply chain over aggressive timelines for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Who could have predicted that, rather than condemning oil and gas, the powerful torchbearers of hostility toward hydrocarbons sought to improve the flow of oil and natural gas.

G7 Reality Check

The G7’s decision does not end climate politics, but it does mark a return to the better instincts of energy policy: Test claims against evidence, weigh costs against benefits, and value the importance of energy to human progress.

The summit highlighted Canada’s potentRal to deliver additional capacity to energy markets over the coming years. Until recently, Canada’s leadership was hellbent on the net zero agenda, refusing to utilize fully domestic reserves. Now, it is looking to expand oil and gas supplies in cooperation with other G7 members – the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

The present U.S. administration has been a model for other countries, openly rejecting climate dogma that dominated energy policy for decades. In that sense, the G7 shift is part of a broader correction.

At the forefront of climate politics has been the claim that Earth’s climate is at risk of irreparable harm by modern industry and the proposition that the appropriate defense is central control of all human activity. To question the formulation was heretical if not criminal.

This arrogance perhaps is best answered by the simple facts of carbon dioxide (CO2), the alarmists’ main bogeyman. A harmless trace gas in the atmosphere, CO2 is necessary for life as a constituent of plant photosynthesis. Modern increases in atmospheric concentrations from the burning of fossil fuels have not caused dangerous warming but have contributed to significant greening of Earth and boosted crop harvests.

The work of Dr. William Happer and others show that doomsday predictions are based on exaggerations of CO2’s warming potential and manipulation of computer models that have little to do with real-world natural phenomena.

Sane Policy Requires Correct Science

Public policy should not be drafted as if every heat wave, storm, or drought proves a political agenda. Otherwise, as we have seen, governments end up seeking to eliminate energy sources that have brought the world unprecedented prosperity and are required for further advancement.

Fossil fuels still support transportation, food production, and industrial expansion across the world. In poorer countries reliable power is especially valued ahead of environmental virtue signaling.

Synthetic fibers used in everyday clothing are derived from petrochemicals. Fertilizers that allow modern agriculture to feed 8 billion people are produced from natural gas. By deliberately attacking the fossil fuel industry, the climate movement inflates the cost of everything, creating artificial scarcity in a world of abundance.

The G7 is not a minor forum. It shapes the language of power, finance, and development among some of the world’s most influential economies. Having set aside the climate agenda, G7 leaders are confronting energy reality.

Contributing to this return to sanity has been research like that captured in “Challenging Net Zero with Science,” a CO2 Coalition publication that provides a basis for supporting rational energy policy and rejecting the climate industrial complex’s dangerous fantasies.

Public debate often rewards loud certainty over careful analysis. The coalition’s message has been straightforward and disruptive: A net zero policy that undermines affordable energy will destroy prosperity and social stability.

True environmental stewardship is adapting to nature while maximizing human prosperity. It requires building resilient infrastructure, expanding access to cheap energy, and rejecting efforts to lower the standard of living.

Let us hope that 2026 G7 forum paves the way for pragmatic policies that advance the human condition and protect individual liberties.

Originally published at Daily Signal, July 8, 2026.

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. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

Can US and India Forge a ‘Big, Beautiful’ Energy Deal?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to India produced much-needed diplomatic momentum, with more ground to cover on the energy front. Even with an Indian commitment to purchase $500 billion in American goods over the next five years, Rubio’s stated desire to supply “as much energy” as India is willing to buy appears to remain on the table.

From The CO2 Coalition

By Vijay Jayaraj

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to India produced much-needed diplomatic momentum, with more ground to cover on the energy front. Even with an Indian commitment to purchase $500 billion in American goods over the next five years, Rubio’s stated desire to supply “as much energy” as India is willing to buy appears to remain on the table.

Washington and New Delhi stand united in their unapologetic embrace of oil, natural gas, and coal. However, results of the partnership in this area remain modest compared to what the countries need. The task now is to turn early agreements into meaningful outcomes that serve both nations’ long-term interests.

Dylan Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State for Global Public Affairs, confirmed that the Energy Department will host a fuel security meeting later this year for representatives of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, an arrangement of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. “Each country will leverage their unique energy resources and capabilities to strengthen regional energy resilience,” he said.

The subcontinent needs energy sources at a scale to power growth for hundreds of millions moving into the middle class. And the time has come for Indian and American leaders done playing the games of climate theater.

Energy dictates India’s future

India faces a hard arithmetic: A growing population, rising incomes, and expanding industry will keep power demand climbing for decades. While participating in climate diplomacy and renewable energy development, India has never seriously embraced the fantasy that wind and solar technologies can sustain an industrial economy.

India continues expanding coal production, approving power plants, increasing oil and natural gas imports, and underpinning its development with hydrocarbons. India’s success depends on abundant energy for electricity, industrial heat, transportation fuels, and manufacturing.

Coal remains indispensable for India’s electricity sector because it provides dispatchable, large-scale generation. The country has domestic reserves, the necessary infrastructure, and industrial systems built around thermal power.

Natural gas—a complement to coal, not a replacement—is suited for certain industrial applications and energy systems requiring operational responsiveness and serves as a feedstock for petrochemicals and fertilizers.

The International Energy Agency’s India Gas Market Report: Outlook to 2030 says India’s gas consumption is set to rise about 60% by 2030, with annual imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) likely to more than double. That pace is rare for any major economy. As part of that formula, American natural gas offers availability and geopolitical insulation. It avoids the political uncertainty of Russia, where energy supplies are accompanied by coercion, and reduces risks associated with the Strait of Hormuz.

This matters because energy security is economic security. American exports can anchor productive growth instead of feeding another round of import anxiety for the operators of Indian city gas networks, industrial boilers, fertilizer plants, and power generators.

 A big, beautiful energy deal?

 For two decades, the climate industrial complex operated as a massive, shadow government of unelected bureaucrats who funneled billions of dollars into nongovernmental organizations, academia, and media outlets to manufacture consent for radical anti-fossil fuel policies.

The Trump administration took an axe to that system, declaring that America will not cripple itself and others with climate politics dressed up as environmental wisdom. Withdrawing from restrictive international climate agreements and freezing the finances of meaningless—and corrupt—programs, the administration unleashed American energy producers.

India watched with keen interest. Indian leadership understands that the energy policies of green-crazy California and Germany produce high prices and scarcity—exactly the opposite of market demands.

The previous Biden administration constantly badgered India about its “carbon footprint,” sending envoys to lecture Indians on the supposed dangers of economic growth. That era of diplomatic condescension is over.

A U.S.-India alliance would strike at the heart of the corrupt climate lobby. By trading massive quantities of fossil fuels, it would break a stranglehold on energy policy that climate alarmists have long sought to make permanent.

Rubio’s visit has opened a pathway to move beyond quick headlines and build a framework for unprecedented energy trading that can deliver gains for workers, families, and industries in both countries. They would send a message that energy security comes first, hopefully making the shady business model of climate fearmongering a historical footnote.

Originally published at Washington Examiner, June 1, 2026.

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. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

Aussie Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy Delivers their Final Report

Campaigners, I mean senators, are horrified that people don’t believe government climate warnings, and blame a conspiracy of big oil interests for this lack of trust in Green claims.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Campaigners, I mean senators, are horrified that people don’t believe government climate warnings, and blame a conspiracy of big oil interests for this lack of trust in Green claims.

Australia has to fight back against misinformation about climate change, Senate report says

By business reporter Gareth Hutchens

…

The Senate’s select committee on information integrity on climate change and energy released its final report last week.

It sounded an alarm about the health of Australia’s digital town square and the erosion of trust in society, and said we have to clean up our online debates. Climate disinformation, the Atlas Network and Dr Karl

…

“A robust information ecosystem is critical to the health of Australia’s democracy and to its ability to meet the challenges arising from climate change — including the need to transition to renewable energy sources,” the report argued.

“However, the committee heard that the integrity of Australia’s information ecosystem is threatened by a proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, which is polarising public discourse and eroding trust in science and knowledge institutions.

…

With that in mind, the report has recommended that the federal government explore ways to improve transparency of political campaign activities in Australia, such as the creation of third parties, that are resourced by commercial and corporate interests.

It says the government should explore funding models for independent monitoring support (for example, via the Australian Internet Observatory) to track hidden digital influence ecosystems and provide independent transparency and accountability of online platforms.

…Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-29/senate-report-misinformation-climate-change-recommendations/106497978

The final report is available here.

The section on bad actors follows the usual green playbook, citing Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s inquiry into alleged big oil misinformation, and included a demand that big oil be held accountable for their deception;

…

Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid

Accountability for Climate Change

1.40 In April 2024, US Congressman Jamie Raskin and US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse released a joint staff report Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change. The report was the result of a three-year investigation by Democratic Party staff in the US House Oversight and US Senate Budget Committee.

1.41 The report explores the efforts large fossil fuel companies—including ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation and Shell—allegedly undertake to deceive the public and investors about the effect of fossil fuels on climate change and how they undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

1.42 Key observations within the report include:

 Fossil fuel companies have understood the effects of fossil fuels on the climate since at least the 1960s but have worked to undermine public understanding of this.

The campaign against climate action waged by these companies has evolved from outright denial of climate change to undermining action using a playbook of deception and disinformation.

The fossil fuel industry uses intermediaries like trade associations and thinktanks to spread false and misleading narratives against climate action.

The industry strategically partners with universities to lend credibility to its deception campaigns while silencing or attacking opposing voices.

1.43 The report did not make recommendations, but noted that the investigation and report had ‘set out new evidence about the extent of the fossil fuel industry’s evolving efforts to avoid accountability for climate change’ and concluded that it was ‘long past time to hold Big Oil accountable for its deception campaign and to take action to undo the harms it has perpetrated‘

…Read more: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/RB000675/toc_pdf/TheIntegrityGapRestoringTrustintheClimateandEnergyDebate.pdf

The report contained a complaint that disinformation had turned people against wind turbines;

…

1.46 The report found that bad faith actors had weaponised mis/disinformation to exacerbate community concerns and resistance to offshore wind. In particular, mis/disinformation about the effect of wind turbines on ocean life was said to have circulated through posts on social media platforms, thus amplifying community opposition and creating polarisation. The report highlighted links between this mis/disinformation and fossil fuel companies.

1.47 Recommendation four of the report states that ‘the Australian Government and DCCEEW [the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water] [should] proactively ensure that foreign actors, spam engagement, and misinformation and disinformation do not overpower local community voices from being heard in local public debate’

…Read more: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/RB000675/toc_pdf/TheIntegrityGapRestoringTrustintheClimateandEnergyDebate.pdf

The committee provided the following recommendations. Naturally they are mostly about handing out money to leftist causes;

List of recommendations

Recommendation 1

9.23 The committee recommends the Australian Government support and adopt the United Nations Global Principles on Information Integrity and work to coordinate the application of these principles across government.

Recommendation 2

9.26 The committee recommends the Australian Government officially endorse the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change launched at COP30 in Belem, Brazil.

Recommendation 3

9.33 The committee recommends the Australian Government ensure the adequacy of resourcing for regulators such as Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to combat and expose corporate greenwashing.

Recommendation 4

9.34 The committee recommends the Australian Government explore ways to ensure greater transparency of campaign activities, such as the creation of third parties, that are resourced by commercial/corporate interests in the lead up to a federal election.

Recommendation 5

9.40 The committee recommends the Australian Government continue to provide funding support for regional and independent media outlets.

Recommendation 6

9.41 The committee recommends the Australian Government increase funding for social sciences research relating to threats to climate and energy information integrity including potential solutions.

Recommendation 7

9.42 The committee recommends the Australian Government explore funding models for independent monitoring support (for example, via the Australian Internet Observatory) to track hidden digital influence ecosystems and provide independent transparency and accountability of platforms.

Recommendation 8

9.45 The committee recommends the Australian Government, through the regular Education Ministers’ Meeting curriculum review cycle, broaden the Australian Curriculum ‘digital literacy’ general capability to strengthen media literacy.

Recommendation 9

9.46 The committee recommends the upcoming National Media Literacy Strategy incorporate the information integrity framework with examples from the climate and energy domain.

Recommendation 10

9.47 The committee recommends the Australian Government, coordinated through the Education Ministers’ Meeting, establish stronger oversight and disclosure requirements for corporate engagement within school systems, with clear policies regulating philanthropic or corporate relationships that may interfere with educational integrity.

Recommendation 11

9.55 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider legislative or regulatory reform which identifies psychosocial harms, places the onus of responsibility in addressing these harms onto digital platforms and monitors effectiveness of their mitigations through regulatory and civic oversight.

Recommendation 12

9.56 The committee recommends the Australian Government improve the quality of data reported to the Australian Communications and Media Authority from the digital platforms to include for example, thematic breakdown of their reporting inclusive of climate and energy data, denominator data, removal actions and paid advertising related to climate and energy.

Recommendation 13

9.57 The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider how researchers could be provided adequate legal protection to undertake their work in the digital platform space.

Recommendation 14

9.58 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider how to improve the complaints resolution process, including about false and misleading information online.

Recommendation 15

9.64 The committee recommends the Australian Government ensure the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner is adequately funded for community engagement.

Recommendation 16

9.65 The committee recommends the Australian Government require the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner to provide a summary of threats to climate and energy information integrity in their annual report.

Recommendation 17

9.66 The committee recommends that the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation consider social licence on renewable energy projects. This could include:

hiring new staff with expertise in social science, behavioural science, and community engagement, and;

ensuring their decision making and advisory bodies have social licence expertise represented.

Recommendation 18

9.67 The committee recommends that the Australian Government task the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to provide advice on the costs and benefits of renewable energy creation, storage and transmission alongside clean manufacturing to create data needed to address local social licence concerns.

Recommendation 19

9.68 The committee recommends the National Health and Medical Research Council fund new research on the effects of wind energy on human health.

Recommendation 20

9.69 The committee recommends the Australian Government continue to strengthen communication and social licence capability across government agencies and departments. Improved information flow between jurisdictions and across departments will help address knowledge fragmentations across multiple sectors of the economy (e.g. transport, electricity, agriculture, emergency services).

Recommendation 21

9.70 The committee recommends the Australian Government resource community led engagement driven by organisations with proven track records in local communities. These models may include capacity building for local leaders in rural and regional areas, support for local governments that are contingent on their engagement with community organisations or groups with a proven track record.Read more: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Information_Integrity_on_Climate_Change_and_Energy/ClimateIntegrity/Report/List_of_recommendations

The worst part of this sad green senate kabuki performance, Australia desperately needs fossil fuel investment, to rebuild our extraction and refinery capacity. Back in the 1970s Australia produced 98% of its own fuel – we could have laughed off the Iran war oil crisis. But with today’s diminished refinery capacity, thanks to decades of political hostility towards fossil fuel, there is a very real risk the Australian economy could grind to a halt.

The greens throwing their weight around in the senate and demanding fossil fuel companies be held accountable has confirmed Australia’s status as uninvestable.

Clean Tech’s “Huge Blow”: Catalyst Fund (Gates’s Breakthrough Energy) Terminated

“Many [green] philanthropists who are willing to step up are looking around and saying, ‘DOE is stepping back and Catalyst doesn’t exist. I can’t solve this on my own.’” – Lara Pierpoint, Trellis Climate at Prime Coalition

From The Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr. 

“Many [green] philanthropists who are willing to step up are looking around and saying, ‘DOE is stepping back and Catalyst doesn’t exist. I can’t solve this on my own.’” – Lara Pierpoint, Trellis Climate at Prime Coalition (below)

For decades, energy realists have explained why the stock energy created by the sun — fossil fuels — are inherently more economical than the dilute, intermittent flow from the sun. The concept of energy density has been explained ceaselessly in articles and books by Vaclav Smil. Political Economy 101 — markets pick winners, leaving losers for government — also comes into play as experimental technologies enabled by special government favor face the political winds of change.

Evidence? Start with the recent demise of the rooftop solar industry and the EV industry here in the U.S. Reference also the synthetic fuel programs of the 1970s, and before. Nuclear projects that were either never completed or came in far over budget (Summer Plant; Plant Vogtle III and IV) apply.

And now, a major fund for “green” energy projects has announced the end of its program after Phase I’s failure. The termination of Breakthrough Energy’s Catalyst arm for financing “first-of-a-kind projects is a ‘huge blow’ for cleantech,” reported Latitude Media (February 18, 2026). Author Catherine Boudreau explained:

Breakthrough Energy has decided to cease new investments from Catalyst, its first-of-a-kind project finance arm, marking the latest setback for climate tech start ups trying to scale up in an already difficult market. 

“The fact that Catalyst is disappearing is a huge blow,” said Lara Pierpoint, managing director for Trellis Climate at Prime Coalition, which deploys philanthropic capital to early-stage climate tech, in an interview with Latitude Media. “There isn’t a replacement for what Catalyst was doing.”

“The Bill Gates-backed fund launched in 2021 with about $1.5 billion in capital,” Boudreau continued.

That’s far more cash than most specialized project finance funds, all dedicated to a single purpose: carrying nascent green technologies from pilot phase to their first commercial project, a financing gap known as the Valley of Death because so many startups flounder when it comes to commercializing a technology that they’ve successfully demonstrated in the lab.

Catalyst’s “blended finance” model raised capital from philanthropy, corporations, and governments, and was aimed at derisking projects viewed as too risky by larger, institutional infrastructure investors.  

The program is ending at 10 percent of plan.

Catalyst set a goal to mobilize a total of $15 billion in project finance for technologies like green hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuel, direct air capture, long-duration energy storage, and low-carbon cement and steel. Now that the fund is suspending new investments, it will likely fall short of that goal — right at the same time that the Trump administration has canceled billions of dollars in loans and grants for climate tech projects.

What now? The parties are putting a happy face on a large philanthropic malinvestment.

“With the initial portfolio established, Catalyst has transitioned from evaluating new funding opportunities to managing and supporting its existing companies,” Breakthrough Energy said in a statement to Latitude Media.

“We are actively working with our partners to gather lessons learned and case studies from Catalyst’s groundbreaking work, and in the months to come will have more to say about how we apply those lessons to the long-term challenge of funding and deploying new energy infrastructure.”

The group’s head, Mario Fernandez, has been terminated along with other Catalyst staff. (The funding loss and layoffs have not been disclosed.) But Fernandez was all optimism last year about what it took to get a grant:

There is such a rigid criteria for infrastructure investors. You have to have a long-term track record for the technology. You have to have hours of operation. You have to have a really solid EPC scheme to build it. You have to have a long-term contract and you have to be able to not only invest in a small one-off project, but you have to be able to invest hundreds of millions of dollars from that fund into that technology.

But uneconomic is uneconomic. And politically correct is not what is used to be.

Gates Realism Under Trump II

A decade ago (2016), philanthropists worth $170 billion, with Gates at the helm, announced big plans for “green” investing. But reality has kicked in. According to Boudreau:

… the parent organization Breakthrough Energy has shifted dramatically. In early 2025, the group disbanded its climate policy teams in the U.S. and Europe. And in October, Gates penned a highly controversial letter arguing that some climate finance was “diverting money and attention” from efforts that could have more impact on preventing human suffering, like global health work in poor countries. 

Trump accelerated this moment of truth by cancelling hundreds of awards in the billions of dollars for “green” projects (direct air capture; ‘green’ hydrogen, DAC, distributed energy and the ‘virtual power plant’, and methane reduction programs.

Boudreau ended by quoting Lara Pierpoint, head of the nonprofit Trellis Climate at Prime Coalition, whose mission is to “empower donors to advance untapped climate solutions with speed and scale.”

Pierpoint said that the withdrawal of funding from DOE, coupled with Catalyst ceasing fundraising, will inevitably have ripple effects for her work with philanthropists. Her clients want to invest in technologies with a plausible path to success that will make an impact on slowing climate change. That is becoming harder now that two major avenues for project finance have dried up.

“Many philanthropists who are willing to step up are looking around and saying, ‘DOE is stepping back and Catalyst doesn’t exist. I can’t solve this on my own,’” Pierpoint said.

Just another milestone in the retreat and demise of the “energy transition” that many on the free-market side predicted decades ago. [1] Vindication, however, is small consolation for the massive waste and misdirection of resources from a consumer-first free market.

——–

[1] See my 1997 study for the Cato Institute, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’“. Reviews on this policy analysis on its 15th anniversary (2012) were made by Jon Boone and Tom Tanton and myself.

Climate Activist Despair: “Where’s the pushback?” Against President Trump

“… climate deniers have been privately celebrating what they claim is the “silent” acquiescence of billionaires, Democrats, climate activists and even reporters …”

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… climate deniers have been privately celebrating what they claim is the “silent” acquiescence of billionaires, Democrats, climate activists and even reporters …”

Trump has launched an unprecedented assault on the environment. Where’s the pushback?

Rei Takver
Thu 5 Mar 2026 03.56 AEDTLast modified on Thu 5 Mar 2026 13.35 AEDT

Climate deniers expected more resistance to the fossil fuel blitz. But Democrats, billionaires and activists have gone silent

…

As Donald Trump assaults the legal foundation of America’s ability to regulate global warming emissions, climate deniers have been privately celebrating what they claim is the “silent” acquiescence of billionaires, Democrats, climate activists and even reporters to the president’s aggressive pro-fossil-fuel agenda.

“In my 26 years of being focused on climate, I’ve never seen anything like this. Trump is gutting everything they ever stood for,” Marc Morano, a longtime climate denier, said in January at the World Prosperity Forum, a five-day event in Zurich, Switzerland, billed as a rightwing alternative to the World Economic Forum in Davos.

“Billionaires are silent. Democrats in Congress have been silent. Climate activists. There has been no pushback on this,” Morano said – and he may have a point, according to some experts who research the climate denial movement.

“The Trump administration just marched in and destroyed the crown jewel of climate science in the United States,” Robert Brulle, a professor of environment and society at Brown University, told me, referring to the Trump administration’s dismantling of the country’s premier climate research center, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in December.

“And nothing happened. There wasn’t even a whimper. I never thought I’d ever say this: Marc Morano is correct.”

…

Microsoft and Amazon, which had donated large sums to Trump’s inauguration fund, have both recently embraced fossil-fuel powered AI data centers alongside Trump energy officials and fossil fuel industry players.

…

Why? “In today’s deeply polarizing US political stance, climate discussion has come to feel so radioactive that many leaders would rather avoid it,” Anjali Chaudhry, a business sustainability researcher at Dominican University, wrote in Forbes.

…

For Brulle, the environmental sociologist, addressing the growing hush around climate must go beyond talking.

“I think the climate movement in the United States has failed. It has flat failed, and that means we need to rebuild this movement in a completely different manner,” he said.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/04/trump-climate-change-democrats

The reason is obvious. The climate crisis was never real, it was just a means to an end. Climate activists have long accused skeptics of being payed shills of the fossil fuel industry, but the reality is it was always the climate activists who were the useful idiots.

The climate crisis was only supported by politicians so long as it could frighten moderate conservatives into supporting liberals. Now that only the most committed leftists still take climate warnings seriously, the fake climate crisis has outlived its political usefulness.

The AI revolution delivered the finishing blow to a narrative which was already on the way out. But it also offered a new opportunity to those whose campaign style exploits fear of the unknown.

Not only did the AI revolution force big tech to reverse course and support President Trump’s “Drill baby drill” energy abundance agenda, it also created a new fake crisis with greater bipartisan appeal than the failed climate crisis narrative.

The smarter Democrats are already seizing the opportunity. Bernie Sanders has jumped ship onto the new fake AI crisis.

‘Slow this thing down’: Sanders warns US has no clue about speed and scale of coming AI revolution

After meeting with unspecified tech leaders, senator calls for urgent policy action as companies race to build ever more powerful systems

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/21/ai-revolution-bernie-sanders-warning

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is also jumping on the anti-AI bandwagon.

Americans Hate AI. Which Party Will Benefit?

Party insiders are divided on how to channel Americans’ growing fear of AI.

It’s become a common occurrence: Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer posts a light-hearted video on social media. She’s Christmas shopping, or she’s talking about her Michigan accent or she’s touting her administration’s accomplishments. And immediately, the comments start rolling in, all demanding the same thing: Say no to data centers in the state. Stop construction. “All I want for Christmas is legislation banning data centers in Michigan.”

National figures in the party are beginning to notice the anger. What began on the ground with widespread protests against the facilities that provide infrastructure for the growth of artificial intelligence is finding its way into new plans, memos and rhetoric as the Democratic Party thinks about how to win in 2026 and 2028.

…Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/28/ai-job-losses-populism-democrats-bernie-sanders-00706680

My prediction – if Governor Whitmer gathers enough momentum for her anti-data center crusade, she will be the surprise 2028 Democratic Presidential nominee.

Expect to see a lot more AI scare tactics in coming months and years, as Democrat politicians and former climate activists reposition themselves to align with bipartisan concerns about AI, and try to convince voters they are the defenders of the people against the rising AI menace.

Recognizing Failure, Some Liberals Are Reshaping Their Climate Messaging

Did the far left ever really believe its own rhetoric when it came to climate change? True, when it comes to the positions staked out by any politician on the issues of the day, the age-old question is constantly in the back of everyone’s minds: How much of what they claim to believe is based on heartfelt, core convictions, and how much is due to outside political pressure or geared toward generating contributions?

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Did the far left ever really believe its own rhetoric when it came to climate change? True, when it comes to the positions staked out by any politician on the issues of the day, the age-old question is constantly in the back of everyone’s minds: How much of what they claim to believe is based on heartfelt, core convictions, and how much is due to outside political pressure or geared toward generating contributions?

But nowhere is this question more pertinent than when it comes to politicians and their advocacy for climate change. Why? Because it’s difficult to think of anything that comes close to rivaling the number of government mandates implemented and the amount of taxpayer dollars allocated to reshape society as has happened in the name of climate change. Surely, it wasn’t all based on empty rhetoric and misdirection, was it?

Far-left environmental and climate change groups have significantly increased their political spending over the years. In turn, election after election features liberal politicians hammering away on the alleged damage done by the fossil fuel industry. In 2024 they were at it again, highlighting the latest scary predictions about the worst-case climate change scenarios, and fervently warning of the untold horrors that would happen if Donald Trump and Republicans won in 2024.

Guess what? Once more, it all fell flat with most voters. Trump won the presidency, Republicans kept control of both the House and Senate, and across the nation GOP dominance continued in state government.

There are some Democrats who finally seem to be getting the message that their climate narrative is not resonating. A recent story in Politico noted, “Democrats are increasingly showing they have decided it’s a losing message to tout the ways in which they’d curb fossil fuel production to thwart the most dire effects of climate change.”

Apparently, the realization that Americans are no longer falling for the tired old global warming bogeyman is starting to sink in, at least for some – and a growing number seem ready to modify their rhetoric on the subject.

For instance, the Politico story noted that Sen. Brian Schatz (D) of Hawaii last year removed “climate hawk” from his X biography. And during a fall event connected to New York Climate Week, Schatz, according to Politico, said that “those of us in the climate community who are used to making a more broad argument about where we are in the sweep of history have to get comfortable making a more immediate argument that says the reason prices are going up is a deliberate policy choice of the Republican Party.”

Indeed, changing the subject from doomsday climate scenarios to more economically focused arguments seems to be the path many Democrats have decided to follow, the story noted. Makes you wonder if they ever believed their own rhetoric in the first place. But climate change messaging is not their only problem. Reality is making their argument more difficult all the time.

The harsh winter experienced so far has resulted in Americans clearly witnessing the limits of their preferred energy sources. For example, the last week of January saw social media populated with images of solar panels caked with snow. The real possibility of frozen wind turbines is an annual concern, as described here.

And as the Associated Press reported last winter, “frigid temperatures from Chicago to northern Texas have made life painful for electric-vehicle owners, with reduced driving range and hours of waiting at charging stations.”

Based on apocalyptic warnings about the necessity of changing our ways, billions have been spent to prop up alternatives like wind and solar. But in New England, for instance – where an aggressive push has been made to build large-scale offshore wind projects – the electricity needed to combat the recent frigid air mass was generated mostly by natural gas, oil and nuclear power, as usual.

Left to the tender mercies of wind and solar, New Englanders and most of the U.S. population would have been a cold and stranded lot indeed.

Politicians from the political left tamping down or even forsaking their doomsday climate talk could just be a short-term development while polling shows voters don’t consider climate change a top priority.

Or, it could be a more long-lasting phenomenon. Albert Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” It can be argued that most leftwing politicians never understood it will enough; they just parroted the talking points. Now that they’re realizing voters aren’t listening anymore, they’re downplaying the issue – raising questions about the level of their sincerity in the first place.

The left has been enslaved to their climate change dogma for decades. As such, they’re not ready to give it up entirely. But they are trying to craft a new message – “affordability” – around a tired old issue. Apparently, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but you can simplify the one that he already knows. Will voters think Rover is smarter – or still dutifully obedient?

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.

California Importing Foreign Fuel After Running Refineries Out of Town

California imported a record amount of gasoline in November after major refinery closures tied to years of Golden State leaders imposing strict regulations, Bloomberg News reported Sunday.

From Watts Up With That?

From THE DAILY CALLER

Daily Caller News Foundation

Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter

California imported a record amount of gasoline in November after major refinery closures tied to years of Golden State leaders imposing strict regulations, Bloomberg News reported Sunday.

Over 40% of imported gasoline to California hailed from the Bahamas, with Asian nations like Japan and India contributing additional volume, Bloomberg News noted, citing data from Vortexa. California politicians have imposed harsh regulations on the oil and gas industry for years, enacting America’s highest tax on gasoline and implementing a cap-and-trade program for emissions that some policy experts have linked to rising energy costs in the state.

The state has the most expensive gas prices in the nation, at $4.58 a gallon — standing in contrast with the national average of $2.92 a gallon — according to the most recent AAA data. Bloomberg News reported that added shipping expenses are further burdening California’s already costly gas market.

Two major refineries are also closing shop in California, with Phillips 66 winding down its California refinery, while Valero is set to shutter its Benicia facility and record a $1 billion write-down.

“Valero didn’t walk away from California lightly. It paid more than a billion dollars to leave. When a major refinery operator chooses a billion-dollar write-down over continued operation, that’s a clear indictment of California’s regulatory environment,” CEO of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Shutting down a refinery that supplies nearly 9 percent of the state’s gasoline while demand still exists is not a transition strategy, it’s a self-inflicted supply shock. The predictable result is higher prices, greater volatility, and increased dependence on foreign fuel. Californians will feel the consequences every time they fill up.”

 (RELATED: Gas Crisis Looms Over California As Dems Continue To Impose Crippling Regs)

Bloomberg News reported that the Bahamian trade route is now a crucial part of California’s strained supply chain, with two tankers carrying gasoline arriving from the Bahamas in 2026 so far. In 2025, California imported more gasoline from the Bahamas than it had in the nine preceding years combined, according to Bloomberg News.

Gasoline imports fell from their January pinnacle, which came as Phillips 66 began winding down operations, Bloomberg News reported. The publication also noted that a lack of interstate pipelines are contributing to California’s affordability woes.

GasBuddy’s head of petroleum analysis, Patrick De Haan, told Bloomberg News that the refinery closures are set to spike gas costs by another 5 to 15 cents a gallon. De Haan also told Bloomberg News that California requires a specific grade of gasoline blendstock that some Asian nations are equipped to supply to the Golden State.

The impending refinery closures have led some state regulators to moderate their stance, according to Bloomberg News, and Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom noted that he is working with the refineries regarding the potential gas crisis.

“While others point fingers to spread fear and divide us, California is doing the actual work—collaborating with industry, using data and transparency to protect consumers, and building the all-of-the-above energy future America needs,” Newsom said in January. “We’re in ongoing discussions with Valero to evaluate options for continued operations at the Benicia refinery and I appreciate the company planning responsibly, including planning for imports of refined products to supply the market in the meantime.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Poor nations won’t follow Europe and the UN into energy suicide

Calling them wasteful and a threat to America’s sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity, President Trump pulled the United States out of 66 international organizations – most importantly the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundation for “climate crisis” treaties and policies.

Map of Europe with the phrase 'Green Colonialism' and yellow stars superimposed on a green background.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

The United Nations building in New York City, showcasing its modern architecture and surrounded by flags representing different nations against a cloudy sky.

Calling them wasteful and a threat to America’s sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity, President Trump pulled the United States out of 66 international organizations – most importantly the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundation for “climate crisis” treaties and policies.

He also withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, vetoed U.S. attendance at the 2025 COP30 climate conference, and revoked multiple costly regulations based on “climate crisis” claims.

Dozens of banks have withdrawn from the Net Zero Banking Alliance. At this year’s World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, climate action, renewable energy, and sustainable development received little attention – by the wealthy political, corporate, and financial elites who populate the WEF.

(However, the WEF may simply be going into stealth mode, using its “financialization of nature” concept to “treat ecosystems as assets,” dollarize them – and set the stage for the “international community” or UN to replace local, state, and national decision-making on development.)

Bill Gates now says climate change is not a crisis, and the world must start focusing instead on improving lives, healthcare and living standards for the world’s poorest people, especially by ensuring they have plentiful, dependable, affordable energy – which only coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear can provide.

Running counter to these trends, Western Europe is still committing economic suicide – or more accurately, its elites are committing economic and real manslaughter against poor and working classes.

But meanwhile, China, India, Indonesia, and other recently impoverished and still developing countries are increasingly using fossil fuels to lift millions, even billions out of poverty, disease, and despair. African and other nations are eager to follow – and tell Western climate scolds to buzz off.

Winter Storm Fern caused dozens of deaths across the United States. Hundreds of thousands went hours or days without electricity, mostly due to ice breaking power lines amid days-long frigid temperatures.

But every year, in still-poor countries, nearly 750 million people still have no access to electricity – 600 million in Sub-Saharan Africa alone. Billions more have minimal, sporadic access. They subsist in permanent or rolling blackouts.

Not dozens, but millions of them die every year. From indoor air pollution from having to burn wood, charcoal, grass, and dung, because they don’t have natural gas, propane, or electricity for cooking and heating. From bacteria and parasites in their water and food, because they don’t have electricity, water treatment, or refrigeration. From malaria and other diseases, because their substandard clinics and hospitals lack electricity, clean water, sufficient vaccines, and antibiotics, even window screens.

In short, due to being deprived of energy, sound governance, vibrant economies, and jobs. And to global fixations on the “climate crisis” and “ridding the world of fossil fuels,” instead of meeting their needs.

It’s equally abominable that the legacy news media, academia, and “human rights stalwarts” largely those basic needs – while they incessantly bash the United States, Israel, and Western culture.

Global financial institutions are no better – including the World Bank and assorted Multilateral Development Banks, including the Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and even the African Development Bank.

They remind me of Saint Augustine: let us embrace and promote development – but not yet, not too much, and not with fossil fuels. Indeed, most of them still refuse to finance little more than wind, solar, and other “renewable energy” projects. They impose Carbon Colonialism, poverty, disease, and death on poor families – with self-righteous morality and feigned concern about the human tolls.

In 2015, President Obama launched his Power Africa initiative, telling African audiences this was their opportunity to “leapfrog over dirty energy and immediately go to clean energy.”

For a short while, the African Development Bank (AfDB) seemingly broke from this crowd, voicing muted support for coal and gas power generation. “Africa must develop its energy sector with what it has,” AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina said in 2017 – renewable energy and the continent’s vast coal, oil, and gas resources, most of which remain untapped or get exported.

Ignoring fossil fuels is unsustainable, intolerable and immoral – as is the absurd reality that, excluding South Africa, per capita power consumption in Africa is around 660 kWh per annum, compared to an average 6,000 kWh in Europe and 12,500 kWh in the USA.

Thankfully, more African and other countries are freeing themselves from “progressive” Western shackles. However, since 2017, the AfDB has stopped funding new coal projects and restricted oil and gas drilling and production. Abundant, reliable, affordable baseload electricity for Africa seems to have again given way to climate politics, though the changing global tide initiated by President Trump may alter that yet again.

Meanwhile though, China, India and other countries now realize that coal and hydrocarbons are the sine qua non of prosperity, employment, health, and political and strategic power.

As energy and science researcher Vijay Jayaraj recently noted, 460 coal plants are under construction worldwide, another 500 have permits or soon will, and 260 more new coal-fired power plants could be announced soon. Oil and gas are also growing in importance as fuels and raw materials. Wind and solar are add-ons but can never replace coal, hydrocarbons, or nuclear power.

The vast majority of the coal plants are in China and India, with Indonesia and other nations also surging ahead – building reliable generation for affordable electricity, securing supply lines, and drilling and mining their way out of dependence on foreign supplies.

They’re also following the path that Europe, the United States, and other nations did to become developed and wealthy. Every investment in new power generates industries, jobs, tax revenues, and more money for future investments. Free enterprise financing, invention, inspiration, perspiration, and production – with essential, non-stifling government regulation – remain the fastest, surest way forward.

Simply put, the world doesn’t need some “miracle of prosperity.” It needs to eradicate the anti-miracle tragedy of continued poverty. There is simply no reason poverty should continue – or that prosperity should not be found everywhere.

Books, courses, and the internet enable every politician and citizen to learn what technologies are available, what they’ve accomplished, and how to achieve health and prosperity.

These resources also bear witness to the failures across Europe and other countries that have sent living standards back 50-100 years – and sentenced their citizens to energy deprivation, joblessness, and dying because they can no longer afford proper heating and air conditioning or even nutritious food – due to misplaced devotion to climate and renewable energy ideologies.

We might call this the Reverse-Midas Effect: everything climate alarmists touch turns to lead – which brings lead poisoning, developmental delays, learning and behavioral problems, memory dysfunction, even comas and death. In people and nations.

Governments and institutions must support basic human rights of access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy to support modern living standards. Not free; but access to that energy. The must stop financing the WEF, UN, World Bank, and other institutions that often despise America and support only such health and living standards as wind and solar power can provide.

Modeling Manufactured Vulnerability: Why the Maldives Refuse To Sink Despite the Headlines

Every few months, a new study emerges claiming to have finally cracked the code on why the Maldives—or Kiribati, Tuvalu, or whichever island chain is the fashionable climate casualty of the moment—are supposedly on the verge of disappearing under rising seas. They never quite do, of course, but that fact rarely stops the press releases. The latest entry comes from the University of Plymouth and Deltares, announcing with great fanfare that the Maldives may soon face flooding events “every two to three years by 2050,” based on modeling of a rare July 2022 swell-driven flood.

Aerial view of a resort in the Maldives featuring overwater bungalows surrounded by crystal-clear turquoise waters and a lush green island.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

Every few months, a new study emerges claiming to have finally cracked the code on why the Maldives—or Kiribati, Tuvalu, or whichever island chain is the fashionable climate casualty of the moment—are supposedly on the verge of disappearing under rising seas. They never quite do, of course, but that fact rarely stops the press releases. The latest entry comes from the University of Plymouth and Deltares, announcing with great fanfare that the Maldives may soon face flooding events “every two to three years by 2050,” based on modeling of a rare July 2022 swell-driven flood.

You can read the press release yourself here: Study provides new forecasts of remote islands’ vulnerability to sea level rise (EurekAlert!, University of Plymouth). I encourage you to read it closely, because what is buried inside is a story less about island vulnerability and more about modeling overreach—yet again.

The narrative is predictable: a single unusual event is simulated, extrapolated, and then turned into a headline-worthy forecast of future doom. What goes largely unmentioned is the inconvenient fact that the peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly shows that reef islands—including those in the Maldives—have been stable or growing for decades, and that their natural geomorphic processes often make them more resilient in the face of rising seas, not less.

Here at Watts Up With That, I’ve spent nearly two decades highlighting these uncomfortable facts. And because the press release slyly acknowledges some of those same processes but then stuffs them behind the modeling curtain, it’s worth digging into what the science says, what the models assume, and what real-world data continues to show: the Maldives are not drowning. Look at the data:

Graph illustrating the sea level changes of the Maldives over time, indicating fluctuations influenced by oceanographic and climatic factors. The chart shows recorded data from A.D. 400-500 to present, with markers indicating measurements.

A Rare Flooding Event—But a Convenient One

Let’s start with what the press release says upfront:

“In the summer of 2022, 20 islands in the Maldives were flooded when a distant swell event in the Indian Ocean coincided with an extremely high tide level.”

The authors admit this was “a relatively rare occurrence” and the worst flooding since the 2004 tsunami. That should be our first clue: linking a common swell event with an extreme high-tide coincidence is not a harbinger of climate-driven catastrophe. It’s simply a rare confluence of natural factors. Yet this single event becomes the backbone of the model’s prediction that such events will happen “every two to three years by around 2050.” That phrase—by around 2050—deserves its own eyebrow raise. It’s not a measurement. It’s not even a trend. It’s a scenario extrapolated from a model driven by assumed sea-level rise rates and closed-box geomorphic behavior. And that’s the central flaw: models can only produce results consistent with the assumptions embedded into them. If you assume islands are static sandpiles in a rising bathtub, you shouldn’t be surprised when the model says they get wetter.

The Press Release Accidentally Tells the Real Story

Buried in the release is a short sentence that contradicts the entire catastrophe narrative:

“Waves washing over an island can deposit coral sand and rubble… raising its elevation and potentially making it more resilient to future flooding events and sea-level rise.”

That single line—almost tossed in as an afterthought—summarizes two decades of geomorphological research on reef islands. It confirms what real measurements, aerial surveys, and long-term shoreline studies have shown: atolls are dynamic landforms that respond to environmental forces by adjusting, migrating, accreting, and sometimes even expanding vertically. These are not static mounds of sand the way modelers often treat them. They are living systems connected to coral reefs, sediment supply, storm dynamics, and wave climates.

This process—overwash deposition—is not a theory. It is a documented mechanism shaping reef islands globally, including the Maldives. And yet, after admitting this, the press release immediately pivots back to the model’s forecast of increased flooding. The contradiction is obvious: if overwash can raise island elevation, and if atoll islands have repeatedly done so over decades, then a model that excludes island adaptation cannot validly predict their future vulnerability.

The Models Used Don’t Include Island Adaptation—And the Authors Admit It

The key sentence in the release is this:

“The model did not factor in natural or anthropogenic adjustments over the next quarter of a century…”

That is a polite way of saying: We built a model that assumes the islands will not change at all, then used that assumption to claim that they won’t be able to change enough to keep up with rising seas. This is like modeling the future of forests but disallowing tree growth. Or predicting the trajectory of a living reef while assuming coral calcification ceases tomorrow. In the real world, reef islands adjust continually through: sediment overwash, lagoon infilling, seasonal shoreline migration, vertical accretion, and reef-supplied sediment feedback loops.

None of these mechanisms are speculative. They are documented in field studies across multiple ocean basins. But because they are difficult to model—especially at the high resolution required to simulate multi-decadal morphology—most coastal inundation models simply omit them. That’s not a criticism of XBeach itself; it’s a powerful tool for short-term storm simulation and coastal erosion. But it is not designed to model 25-year geomorphic island evolution. Yet here it is used to do exactly that.

The Peer-Reviewed Literature Paints a Very Different Picture

Let’s turn to what the research actually shows about island stability and growth. I’ll cite just a few of the most comprehensive studies.

Webb & Kench (2010), Global and Planetary Change

  • In one of the most influential papers on atoll dynamics, Paul Kench and Arthur Webb examined 27 reef islands over several decades using historic aerial imagery and modern satellite data. Their findings? 86 percent of islands were either stable or increased in size. Not a single island was found to be contracting rapidly enough to justify claims of imminent disappearance.
    Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.03.005

Duvat (2019), “A Global Assessment of Atoll Island Planform Change”

  • Virginie Duvat undertook the largest global analysis of atoll islands ever attempted—709 islands across 30 atolls over multi-decadal timescales. Her findings: 89 percent of islands were stable or increasing in size. Only 11 percent showed any decrease, and those were primarily linked to human modifications. Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.10.001

Kench et al. (2018), Nature Communications

  • This landmark study examined all 101 islands of Tuvalu over four decades and found that 73 percent grew in land area, some by as much as 30 percent. This occurred during a period of significant regional sea-level rise. The conclusion: “Tuvalu’s islands are not simply drowning.”
    Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

Ford & Kench (2015), Geology

  • This paper documented how overwash processes on atoll islands increase island elevation, enabling islands to “keep pace” with sea-level changes.
    Link: https://doi.org/10.1130/G36555.1

Kench, Owen & Ford (2014), Geophysical Research Letters

These studies do not support the idea that rising seas doom atolls. They support the exact opposite: atoll islands are remarkably resilient natural structures that evolve dynamically in response to environmental changes. This is why the Maldives—despite decades of dire predictions—have not only survived but grown in total land area.

Yes, You Read That Correctly: The Maldives Are Growing

Official Maldivian government data show that the total land area has increased in recent decades. WUWT covered this in detail here: Islands That Climate Alarmists Said Would Soon “Disappear” Due to Rising Sea Found to Have Grown in Size

Between 2000 and 2017, the Maldives added roughly 3 percent to its land area. Some islands expanded naturally; others expanded through reclamation. The point is not whether growth is natural or engineered, but that the commonly repeated narrative—that these islands are teetering on the edge of inundation—is contradicted by their actual behavior.

Meanwhile, Maldivian development tells its own story. This is not a nation behaving like it expects to drown. It is building airports, hotels, resorts, sea walls, harbors, luxury properties, and commercial centers. Among the most striking examples is the expansion of Hulhumalé, a massive reclamation project creating entirely new land that is being developed with full confidence in long-term habitability. If Maldivian officials truly believed their country was doomed to drown in the next few decades, their financial and infrastructure behavior would not look like this.

Why This Matters: Atolls Are Dynamic Landforms, Not Bathtub Islands

This is the crux of the issue. Nearly all modeling studies—including the one in the Plymouth/Deltares press release—treat atolls as static. They behave as if islands were poured out of a concrete mold in 1950 and left to erode. But as our own Willis Eschenbach points out, reef islands are the opposite of static: The Unsinkable “Sinking Atolls” Meme

Their shape, size, elevation, and position change continually. They grow vertically through overwash deposition. They migrate laterally with longshore transport. They expand with sediment from reef production. They respond to storms in ways that sometimes look destructive but often turn out to be constructive. Kench and colleagues have shown repeatedly that storm activity can carry sediment inland, thickening island cores and raising overall elevation. Islands that “flood” in one event may actually be gaining elevation through the same process. In other words, the mechanism that causes flooding can also be the mechanism that makes future flooding less likely. This is precisely what the Plymouth press release acknowledges—then ignores when it comes time to present its model results.

Models like XBeach are useful for simulating the short-term hydrodynamic response of coastlines to storm events. I have no quarrel with XBeach as a research tool. But it is not an island evolution model. It is not designed to handle multi-decadal vertical accretion, sediment sorting, coral reef sediment production, reef slope changes, or lagoon infilling. It is certainly not designed to include anthropogenic interventions like sea walls, groynes, reclamation, or harbors. And crucially, as the press release itself admits, the model includes no natural adaptation processes. Yet this omission is not a minor technical detail—it’s the entire story. Imagine modeling the future of a coral reef ecosystem while excluding coral growth. That’s what’s happening here.

The Problem With Extrapolating From a Single Rare Event

The July 2022 event was the only one of 158 storm events (from 1990 to 2023) that produced flooding at the study site under current sea-level conditions. That alone gives us a baseline frequency: roughly one event every 33 years. The model then says that with assumed sea-level rise by 2050, an additional nine storms would produce flooding. This is how we get the “every 2–3 years” projection. But this projection ignores: island elevation increases, shoreline adjustments, wave climate shifts, ENSO and Indian Ocean Dipole variability, storm track variability, and coral reef changes affecting wave attenuation.

In other words, the model’s result is not a forecast; it’s an assumption cascade. Feed the model sea-level rise. Freeze the islands in place. Press “Run.” Report the output as fact.

Atoll islands grew out of rising seas during the Holocene. They adapted to rapid sea-level changes far greater than today’s modest rise. If atolls were as fragile and static as the models assume, they would have drowned thousands of years ago. But they didn’t. They formed, expanded, and stabilized. Today’s sea-level rise is not unprecedented in magnitude or rate. Yet today’s models behave as if every inch of sea-level rise must translate to inundation because the island cannot adapt. It can. It does. It will.

Conclusion: The Larger Narrative Is Politicized—And the Maldives Know It

The Maldives government has long played a dual game:

• Presenting itself internationally as a victim of sea-level rise to attract climate finance.
• Presenting itself domestically and to tourists as a booming island destination full of new development.

These two narratives cannot both be true. And as always, money follows the doom narrative. Meanwhile, concrete, steel, dredging, reclamation, and resort construction follow the island-growth narrative. Which of these two behaviors reflects what the Maldives truly believe about their future?

The Plymouth/Deltares press release is a case study in the gap between model-based forecasting and real-world evidence. The real scientific story, supported by hundreds of surveyed islands and decades of research, is this:

• Atoll islands are not drowning.
• Most islands are stable or growing.
• Natural processes raise island elevation.
• Models that assume static islands cannot predict future vulnerability.
• Sea-level rise in the Maldives is not behaving catastrophically.
• The Maldives continue to expand and develop aggressively.

And when a press release acknowledges that overwash raises islands but then uses a model that omits that process, you know you’re reading a narrative, not a neutral scientific assessment.

Claim: Chinese Dismiss Climate Issues as Elitist, “Western Values”

“Climate change is natural, and global warming may even benefit China”

A large Chinese flag waving in front of an industrial facility with multiple smokestacks and coal storage.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

… there is a widespread suspicion and resistance toward what are perceived as “elite discourses” …

To make the climate issue resonate in China, root it in local realities

Climate discourse must connect with jobs, security and everyday life if it is to win public support.

By Tan Hao
Sept. 17, 2025

A few months ago, Chinese student Jiang Yurong’s commencement speech at Harvard University ignited a heated debate on the Chinese internet.

Her remarks emphasised diversity, humanity and globalism. They were met with ridicule back home, with some criticising them as empty and self-righteous. Others accused her of promoting so-called “Western values”. In the context of today’s tense international geopolitics, she was even portrayed as a spokesperson for American interests.

Like many online controversies, the discussion soon faded. But the deeper problem it reflected has not gone away. In China’s public sphere, there is a widespread suspicion and resistance toward what are perceived as “elite discourses”.

…

Climate change has become a central issue on the social agenda in many advanced economies. It is often viewed as an existential crisis, reflected in frequent protests that sometimes escalate into direct actions – blocking coal trains, disrupting traffic, and even vandalising museum artworks.

By contrast, public interest in China remains limited. This is despite government departments, research institutions and media platforms such as Dialogue Earth continuing to advance research and discussion on climate issues, with some success. For most Chinese citizens, climate change continues to rank far below employment, housing, medical care or education as a pressing concern.

…Read more: 

https://www.eco-business.com/opinion/to-make-the-climate-issue-resonate-in-china-root-it-in-local-realities/

The full article mentions some people think global warming will improve life in China. They’ve got a point – provinces like the near subarctic Chinese province Heilongjiang, which shares a border with Siberia, could use some global warming in winter.

Frankly it’s a good thing China are skeptical of Western climate crisis narratives, good for all of us. Everyone believing the same falsehoods at the same time would be putting all of humanity’s eggs in the same basket – a global disaster when the basket is dropped.