Harriet Hageman Unveils Bill To Protect American Energy From ‘Leftist Legal Crusades’
'risk raising costs for consumers'
A dark money group of left-wing environmental activists has been quietly "training" judges overseeing climate-related lawsuits, hosting them at multi-day, all-expenses-paid seminars in locales like Napa Valley and Palm Beach. Judges who attend these luxury retreats—where they are subject to indoctrination—are not required to report them in ethics disclosures.
The post Inside the Left-Wing Operation to ‘Train’ Judges About Climate Change: Free Trips to Napa Valley, Palm Beach, and Hawaii Fuel a Secret Judge Recruitment Operation appeared first on .
Louisiana has become a flash point in the battle over carbon capture and storage technology.
As its name suggests, CCS entails the capture, transportation, and storage of carbon dioxide produced by industrial activity or power generation.
'CO2 capture and storage will provide additional revenue sources.'
Long employed as a means of enhancing oil recovery, this technology has been embraced in various sectors as a way of simultaneously trapping greenhouse emissions and pacifying climate alarmists who regard carbon dioxide as an existential threat.
Just as liberals can be found on both sides of the issue, conservatives too are divided over whether to encourage CCS in Louisiana, one of only six American states approved to regulate all underground wells.
Republican supporters of the technology have touted it as a job-creating, industry-preserving means of fostering energy security, boosting the state's global competitiveness, and attracting business to Louisiana — claims echoed by ExxonMobil in its Feb. 16 announcement of expanded CCS operations in the state.
Some of the most outspoken opponents of CCS in the Bayou State are, however, MAGA-minded politicos and residents unwilling to accept the potential fallout of what they regard as a threat to private property rights and an act of surrender amid a decades-long climate alarmist campaign against American energy.
Gov. Jeff Landry (R), among the lawmakers who have encouraged CCS in the state, noted in an Oct. 15 executive order barring consideration of new applications for carbon dioxide injection projects — an order purportedly aimed at enabling the Louisiana Department of Conservation and Energy to catch up on previously received petitions — that:
According to Louisiana's economic development agency, $23 billion in CCS-related capital investments in the state has been announced to date and 4,500 jobs are projected to result from CCS-related projects.
RELATED: Out of order: Courts shouldn’t rule based on ‘trust us’ science

Cameron Henry, the president of the Louisiana Senate who has expressed concern about recent legislation that would empower local communities to reject CCS projects, has similarly pitched carbon capture as the way toward greater prosperity.
'Another industrial experiment with serious risks.'
"It is something that is required for industry coming to Louisiana. Louisiana has to come to grips with that and find a happy medium to it," Henry said.
CCS has historically enjoyed a great deal of support from the American left.
The Biden administration, for instance, committed billions of taxpayer dollars to advance CCS initiatives, while the Democratic Party endorsed increasing taxes on fossil fuel power generation where the technology is employed.
While supported by powerful elements of the left and identified by the United Nations as a way of helping to limit so-called "global warming," some leftists who would apparently prefer to see the fossil fuel industry further humbled and America dependent on unreliable energy sources have exhausted a great deal of time and resources fighting the technology's implementation.
Antagonistic groups in the Bayou State, which reportedly leads the nation for proposed CCS projects, appear to have drawn funding from out-of-state liberal organizations such as the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Bloomberg Family Foundation, and a climate fund started by billionaire Jeff Bezos.
'The only people that want it are the ones who are trying to abscond with these federal tax credits.'
Form 990 tax returns indicate that Healthy Gulf, one of the New Orleans-based activist organizations that has criticized and campaigned against CCS initiatives in Louisiana, has received a fortune in recent years from the Rockefeller Family Fund and at least $1 million from the Bloomberg Family Foundation Inc.
Healthy Gulf has in turn dumped grant money into other Louisiana-based anti-CCS outfits including the Lake Maurepas Preservation Society, which campaigned against Air Products' proposed injection of trapped emissions a mile underneath the eponymous lake.
Healthy Gulf is hardly the only outfit opposing Louisiana CCS initiatives that has received money from out-of-state liberal groups.
Rise St. James touts itself as "a faith-based grassroots organization championing environmental justice and opposing the expansion of petrochemical industries in St. James Parish, Louisiana."
The group has characterized CCS as "another industrial experiment with serious risks" and advocated against it — not just in Lake Maurepas but across the whole of Louisiana.
This supposedly "grassroots organization" notes on its website that it is financially backed by the Earth Island Institute, a mammoth international organization based in Berkeley, California.
The Earth Island Institute, which has itself received funds from various climate alarmist groups such as the leftist Tides Foundation, has pushed anti-CCS literature, warning about possible leaks and a potential "pipeline-building frenzy" in the event that the technology becomes more common.
The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, a New Orleans-based nonprofit, even appeared to imply that CCS initiatives are racist, claiming that the technology is "one of the biggest threats to communities of color being harmed by the polluting industries that exacerbate our climate crisis and by the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be protecting them."
The DSCEJ also joined Healthy Gulf and the Alliance for Affordable Energy in an unsuccessful legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to grant Louisiana primary enforcement authority over a class of underground carbon storage wells.
As with the other groups, the DSCEJ has received funds from deep-pocketed, out-of-state liberal organizations.
The Bezos Earth Fund — described as a "$10 billion commitment from Jeff Bezos to fight climate change" — reportedly gave the New Orleans-based activist group $4 million in September 2021. From 2020 to 2023, the DSCEJ received over $700,000 from the San Francisco-based Tides Center and Tides Foundation.
Healthy Gulf, Rise St. James, and the DSCEJ did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
While some of those who oppose CCS appear to be liberals, both inside and outside Louisiana, there is substantial resistance among local conservatives — including Republican lawmakers.
State Rep. Chuck Owen (R), one of the more vocal critics of carbon sequestration initiatives, told Blaze News, "People who live in the country where they're trying to dump this stuff do not want it."
"I polled this twice. This is an 85% 'no' issue in my district," said Owen, whose district includes the cities of Anacoco, DeRidder, Leesville, and Rosepine. "The only people that want it are the ones who are trying to abscond with these federal tax credits, knowing that it's not going to do any good."
Owen emphasized that much of the resistance is about property rights — about Louisianans' aversion to having "private companies coming in and taking their land for money."
A group called Save My Louisiana, comprising mostly residents and elected officials in Owen's neck of the woods, filed a lawsuit in November over state laws enabling the expropriation of private property for pipelines transporting carbon dioxide.
The lawsuit, which was supported by Louisiana Treasurer John Fleming (R), alleges that laws permitting the use of eminent domain for CCS are unconstitutional and that such statutes turn Louisiana "into a national waste dump site."
"No one's against oil and gas. We want oil and gas to succeed here. But how do you equate the burial of carbon waste with energy?" Owen said.
Daniel Turner, founder of the American energy advocacy group Power the Future, told Blaze News, "The entire thing is just absolute bulls**t. The process, the money, the subsidies, the metrics, the goals, the technology — the entire thing is a farce."
"Once we start playing this game that carbon dioxide is bad and needs to be captured, you are playing the left's game," added Turner.
When asked about the burgeoning industry promise of generating thousands of jobs in Louisiana, Turner said, "We're going to create fake jobs for a fake problem and then wonder why we are further in debt."
The disagreement over the value of CCS appears to be coming to a head in Baton Rouge, where lawmakers have advanced numerous bills aimed at hamstringing CCS initiatives.
"These bills are not anti-industry," state Rep. Mike Johnson (R) said in January after filing a trio of bills targeting CCS. "They are pro-property rights, pro-local government, and pro-Louisiana families. Economic development should be built on voluntary agreements — not forced land seizures — and local communities deserve a seat at the table."
Landry's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!A training manual for federal judges just ditched its biased chapter on climate change. Good. But the same manual still peddles quackery about how science works — and it risks teaching the judiciary to treat models and “consensus” as proof.
The “How Science Works” chapter in the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” invites judges to overvalue computer models built on unproven assumptions and to accept “consensus” as evidence even when empirical testing cuts the other way. That is not science. It is a distortion of the scientific method, which demands observation, experimentation, and results that can be challenged and falsified in the real world.
This is the posture of pseudoscience: conclusions protected by authority and repetition rather than disciplined testing against reality.
The problem runs deeper than emphasis. In defining hypothesis, theory, and scientific law, the writers omit testing, observation, and experimentation. They also fail to acknowledge that all three can be disproven — even though demonstrating falseness has long been central to scientific progress. Science advances not by protecting favored conclusions but by trying — relentlessly — to break them.
The chapter even claims that science cannot “disprove hypotheses.” That is historically indefensible. Science has disproven hypotheses repeatedly, and entire revolutions have turned on that process.
Geocentrism gave way to Copernicus’ heliocentric model. Phrenology, eugenics, spontaneous generation, and miasma theory all enjoyed “consensus” before evidence refuted them. Alfred Wegener’s plate tectonics also met decades of rejection before the evidence won. Consensus delayed the truth. It did not deliver it.
The chapter also stumbles over prediction. It says prediction is a logical consequence of a hypothesis, “not necessarily what will happen in the future.” That drains prediction of its most important feature: testable claims about what should occur under specified conditions. A hypothesis can be tested against the past as well, but the logic stays the same — it must match reality.
Then the chapter offers reassurance that reveals the posture: “The fact that there is room for improvement in the process of science does not necessitate distrust of hypotheses that have gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community and about which consensus has been achieved.” In practice, that treats consensus as a shield against contrary evidence — a common ploy among climate alarmists.
RELATED: Win for kids! Major surgeon group reverses course, comes out against child genital mutilation

In places, the chapter contradicts itself, sometimes gesturing at rigor, elsewhere diminishing falsification and redefining key terms. The result is confusion. Its length and muddled definitions do not clarify how science works; they blur it. Worse, they introduce judges to wrongheaded practices — overuse of models and consensus — as if they can settle disputed scientific questions.
That is not the empirical tradition of Isaac Newton or Marie Curie. It is the posture of pseudoscience: conclusions protected by authority and repetition rather than disciplined testing against reality.
U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg removed the manual’s climate chapter after objections from state attorneys general and others. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine still hosts the manual — including “How Science Works” — on its website.
Rosenberg, as head of the Federal Judicial Center, should take the next step and remove this chapter as well. Federal judges and the public they serve deserve a guide to science that prizes evidence over consensus and observation over simulation.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris spent years fearmongering about so-called climate change. Her recent seaside acquisition suggests she may not have been as serious about the supposed threat as she previously let on.
During her first failed presidential campaign where she proposed the U.S. blow $10 trillion on tackling the professed problem, Harris wrote, "Our oceans are warming. Sea levels are rising. Pollution is threatening our air and water. Droughts are hurting our crops. Fires are burning our forests. Extreme weather is destroying our communities. We are poisoning the planet."
'To live in a coastal community is to live on the front lines of the climate crisis.'
Harris previously pushed legislation that would annually award $50 million in grants to various entities for the purposes of "carrying out climate-resilient living shoreline projects" and, in her words, "mitigat[ing] against sea level rise."
When announcing in 2023 that the Biden-Harris administration was recommending $562 million in funding to make communities and the economy more resilient to the alleged climate change, Harris told a crowd at the University of Miami, "To live in a coastal community is to live on the front lines of the climate crisis."
The Washington Free Beacon highlighted that the Biden-Harris administration also pushed a study the same year that claimed that "24%-75% of California's beaches may become completely eroded" due to sea-level rises.
Despite Harris' participation in the rising-sea hysteria that proved fellow Democrat Al Gore a poor prognosticator, she has reportedly purchased an $8.15 million oceanside mansion in Malibu, California.
RELATED: Al Gore wrong again: Study delivers good news for Arctic ice trends, bad news for climate hucksters

A Zillow listing for the 4,000 square foot, four-bedroom home indicates that the property has a pool, a hot tub, a sauna, a cold plunge, a professional gym, a landscaped water feature, a "private putting and chipping green with a bunker," a guest house, and "breathtaking ocean, island, and city views."
The property, which sold on Dec. 2, is located in Point Dume, an affluent neighborhood with private, gated beaches. According to the New York Post, the community is populated by Hollywood and Silicon Valley elites.
Harris, who is reportedly contemplating a third White House bid, did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.
Fortunately for Harris and contrary to her past claims about rising sea levels, a study published last year in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering indicated that the average sea level rise in 2020 was roughly 0.059 inches a year, which works out to about 6 inches per century.
One of the paper's co-authors told the Post in September, "This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media."
Such a rate might explain why Al Gore's 2006 prediction of a 20-foot rise in the global sea level "in the near future" has yet to manifest.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Trump has made several moves this week that will have globalists, climate activists, and other international grifters up in arms.
On Wednesday, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum removing the United States from over 60 international organizations as part of a longer-term plan to put American interests first.
'America will no longer lend its credibility to racist organizations.'
In an executive order signed in February 2025, President Trump ordered the secretary of state to review the United States' membership in many international groups to determine whether cooperation with those groups is in American interests.
The memorandum said that the president had since reviewed the secretary's report and "determined that it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support" for 66 organizations and has officially withdrawn the U.S. from them.
These organizations include 35 "non-United Nations Organizations" and 31 United Nations organizations.
RELATED: Trump administration saves billions in simple move globalists and climate activists alike will hate

Some of the U.N. organizations that the United States removed itself from are the U.N. Economic and Social Council, the International Law Commission, the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations, the U.N. Democracy Fund, the U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, and the U.N. University.
Also included in that list is the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, an organization that United States officials have called "racist."
“America will no longer lend its credibility to racist organizations,” State Department principal spokesman Tommy Pigott told the New York Post.
“Radical activists who embrace DEI ideology and seek to compel the United States to adopt policies mandating race-based wealth redistribution, in organizations such as the U.N. Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, will no longer be entertained,” he added.
According to an article on the United Nations' website, the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent seeks "slavery reparations" and fashions itself as a forum to "shape ... global reparations agendas."
According to the Post, Trump administration officials have alleged that the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent, a subsidiary of the United Nations Human Rights Office, runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and Equal Protection clause with its focus on "victim-based social policies."
Notably missing from the list is the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, even though Trump's February executive order called for an investigation into it. Specifically, the executive order said, "The review will include an evaluation of how and if UNESCO supports United States interests. In particular, the review will include an analysis of any anti-Semitism or anti-Israel sentiment within the organization."
Trump and the Treasury Department also ordered the United States' "immediate" withdrawal from the Green Climate Fund on Thursday.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Hallie Shoffner is running for Senate in Arkansas as a lifelong farmer who had no plans to run for office. But Shoffner spent years working as a left-wing activist—and hired a marketing firm to build a "new brand" as "FarmHerHallie," a Washington Free Beacon review found.
The post She's Running for Senate in Arkansas as a Lifelong Farmer—After Hiring a Marketing Firm To Build a 'New Brand' as 'FarmHerHallie' appeared first on .
Rewiring America, the climate group where Democratic activist Stacey Abrams served as senior counsel, quietly banked more than $5 million in federal climate funding shortly before the Trump administration axed the Biden-era grant earlier this year, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. They suggest that Abrams played a larger role in obtaining the grant than she claimed.
The post Stacey Abrams's Climate Group Banked $5M in Taxpayer Funds Before Trump Admin Axed the Grant, Tax Docs Show appeared first on .
German climate alarmists claimed in a study published last year in the journal Nature that even if carbon dioxide emissions were radically cut down, so-called climate change would still drive the world economy toward a global GDP reduction of 19%.
The alarmists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research suggested further that not only would global annual climate-change damages hit $38 trillion by 2049, but that under a high-emissions scenario, global GDP would be lowered around 60% relative to the baseline in 75 years — an impact reportedly three times larger than previous estimates.
'Most people for the last decade have thought that a 20% reduction in 2100 was an insanely large number. So the fact that this paper is coming out saying 60% is off the chart.'
According to the U.K.-based Carbon Brief, this was one of the most-cited climate papers by the media, including the Associated Press, CNN, Deutsche Welle, and Reuters.
Just the News highlighted that numerous activists and institutions also cited it, including Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and the World Bank.
The problem for the climate alarmists and those who believed them was that the study's conclusions were bogus.
A team of American economists pointed out in a commentary published by Nature in August that "data anomalies arising from one country in [the German researchers'] underlying GDP dataset, Uzbekistan, substantially bias their predicted impacts of climate change."
The economists revealed that if the questionable data pertaining to Uzbekistan were excluded, projected global losses in 2100 would be 23% as opposed to 60%, which is more in line with previous estimates.
RELATED: Al Gore wrong again: Study delivers good news for Arctic ice trends, bad news for climate hucksters

The economists noted further that the Germans underestimated "statistical uncertainty in their future projections of climate impacts."
"Most people for the last decade have thought that a 20% reduction in 2100 was an insanely large number," Solomon Hsiang, a Stanford University professor who co-authored the August commentary, told the New York Times. "So the fact that this paper is coming out saying 60% is off the chart."
'We have to cut down our emissions drastically and immediately — if not, economic losses will become even bigger.'
The paper, which was originally published on April 17, 2024, was retracted on Wednesday.
The retraction notice indicates that "the results were found to be sensitive to the removal of one country, Uzbekistan, where inaccuracies were noted in the underlying economic data for the period 1995-1999."
While the German alarmists attempted to correct the data for Uzbekistan and make other adjustments, they found that "these changes led to discrepancies in the estimates for climate damages by mid-century, with an increased uncertainty range (from 11-29% to 6-31%) and a lower probability of damages diverging across emission scenarios by 2050 (from 99% to 90%)."
In other words, the original conclusions hyped by the liberal media were worthless.
When the now-retracted paper was first published in April 2024, the German researchers made no secret of the point of the exercise: justifying societal and industrial upheaval coded as "adaptation."
"Our analysis shows that climate change will cause massive economic damages within the next 25 years in almost all countries around the world, also in highly developed ones such as Germany, France, and the United States," Leonie Wenz, lead scientist on the study, said in a release.
"These near-term damages are a result of our past emissions. We will need more adaptation efforts if we want to avoid at least some of them," Wenz continued. "And we have to cut down our emissions drastically and immediately — if not, economic losses will become even bigger in the second half of the century, amounting to up to 60% on global average by 2100."
Wenz and her team are hardly the first climate alarmists to have their conclusions proven to be as incorrect as they are outlandish.
Failed presidential candidate Al Gore, for instance, concern-mongered in 2009 that in addition to the significant rise in the global sea level that was supposed to happen "in the near future" but never did, the entire polar ice cap was likely going to be seasonally ice-free, perhaps by as early as 2014.
Gore told the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference that then-new research indicated there was "a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."
In September, a paper published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters revealed that Gore was dead wrong — that over the past 20 years, "Arctic sea ice loss has slowed considerably, with no statistically significant decline in September sea ice area since 2005."
Rather than wait to be proven horribly wrong, Bill Gates — who has spent years fear-mongering about the calamities that would supposedly visit humanity unless governments neutralized certain industries and regulated into extinction certain behaviors — admitted in October that climate change "will not lead to humanity's demise."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!