Air Conditioning Bans Are Latest Example Of Climate Alarmism Damaging Lives
Climate orthodoxy has cultivated a culture that accepts lower standards of living and rejects modern comforts in the name of fighting climate change.Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) ran to replace Ken Paxton as Texas attorney general but lost in the Republican primary runoff late last month to state Sen. Mayes Middleton. Roy's defeat was apparently achieved with help from a coalition of green-energy elites desperate to protect the gravy train that he threatened to derail in Congress.
One of the most full-throated celebrations of Roy's defeat came from the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition PAC — a California-based political outfit committed to punishing lawmakers like Roy who've sought to deny federal subsidies to renewable energy giants.
'This is political warfare.'
"Good riddance, Chip Roy," the PAC, which spent $1.7 million to tank the Republican's campaign, said in a statement on May 26.
"As leaders within the clean energy industry, ITC PAC is proud of our role in ending Chip Roy’s political career, investing nearly $1.5 million to reach GOP voters where they are — including on conservative cable, streaming sites like Rumble, and on MAGA social media — to remind them that Chip Roy betrayed their leader," the group added.
As part of its subversive campaign, the PAC insinuated in MAGA voter-targeted messaging that it was supportive of President Donald Trump and aligned with conservatives but Roy was not.
An ad shared by the PAC to Truth Social in February, for instance, claimed that Roy — whose voting record the Conservative Review gave a 100% Liberty Score and Heritage Action gave a 98% lifetime score — was "not MAGA enough for Texas."
RELATED: The REAL reason gas prices are so high (the federal tax is just the beginning)

The PAC was launched by Peter Davidson, the CEO of Aligned Climate Capital, while Brendan Bell, the COO of Aligned Climate Capital, is listed as the PAC's treasurer. Both men previously worked for the Obama Department of Energy.
Davidson made no secret of why Roy was targeted.
"Not only did he and the Freedom Caucus have the whole rewind and sunsetting of the [tax credits] for solar and wind ... but the whole demonization of the industry, the whole language of the 'Green New Scam' — all that came from the Freedom Caucus, and that came from Chip Roy," Davidson told Politico.
Last year, for instance, Roy ruffled feathers in the "Green New Scam" industry by championing legislation with Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.) that would repeal over 20 green energy tax subsidies created or expanded by the Biden administration's so-called Inflation Reduction Act, thereby saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
"The Inflation Reduction Act, better known as the Green New Scam, is providing massive unlimited subsidies to billion-dollar corporations and Chinese manufacturers to the detriment of American energy freedom and dominance," Roy said at the time.
"It is responsible for building ineffective, unattractive, and unwanted energy projects enriching paper investors over the objections of the people living in Texas communities I represent," Roy continued. "These subsidies need to go away immediately."
'Attack clean energy and we'll end your career just like Chip Roy's.'
When the PAC took to social media to gloat about his defeat, Roy proved unshaken in his resolve, stating in response, "I didn't just declare war — I led the charge to successfully crush the crony 'green new scam' grift. Happy to do it. Will do it again. And again. I'm just getting started."
The biggest donor to the subversive climate PAC that targeted Roy is Chris Larsen, a billionaire activist and cryptocurrency executive who partnered earlier this year with former head of the Sierra Club Michael Brune on a "climate change"-focused investment and philanthropy fund.
In a revelatory conversation that took place at the Prelude Climate Summit in May, Larsen and Brune discussed the devious plot to manipulate the right into getting onside with the climate agenda — partly by adjusting their rhetoric to conform with rightist talking points; by leveraging existing, ostensibly conservative-leaning organizations; and by attacking conservative opponents from the right.
When asked about Roy's race, Larsen boasted that his fellow travelers torpedoed the congressman's polling numbers with "aggressive ads," adding, "This is political warfare."
Although Larsen and Brune acknowledged that Middleton was not "good on climate," Larsen said the point of this particular sabotage exercise was "to make an example of" Roy.
Rep. Roy could not immediately be reached for comment.
Given general elections in various red regions are no longer competitive for Democrats thanks to successful Republican redistricting initiatives, Larsen indicated that their next play is to back Trojan-horse candidates in GOP races.
"There's going to be more and more districts as we all know that just aren’t competitive unless you just say, 'Okay, well I'm just going to be playing in Republican primaries,'" Larsen said. "There's gonna be, like, a Chip Roy, and there's gonna maybe be a Romney-type person, right? Let's get behind the person who's all-in for low-cost energy of all kinds."
Like Larsen and Brune, the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition PAC made abundantly clear that Roy wouldn't be the last lawmaker targeted for daring to end the gravy train to climate elites.
"ITC PAC will spend millions going after enemies of American clean energy, and electing champions who know that American energy dominance means an all-of-the-above approach to energy that includes solar and other renewables," the group said. "Every politician in America should be on notice: Attack clean energy, and we'll end your career just like Chip Roy's."
Tom Matzzie — CEO of solar company CleanChoice Energy, executive chair of the PAC, and a donor to Democrat Mallory McMorrow's U.S. Senate campaign — told Politico, "The goal here is, at the end of this election year, members of Congress, senators, governors, others, remember that if you act viciously against the industry, that there could be a couple million dollars dropped into your next race, and that could threaten your political future."
The RAIR Foundation identified Republican Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), and Nancy Mace (S.C.) as some of the "Green New Scam" industry's next targets.
While poised to hammer Republicans who are committed to derailing the renewable energy industry's taxpayer-funded gravy train, the PAC is also willing to spend a fortune backing defenders of wind and solar credits like Iowa Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R).
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
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!When President Trump boycotted the U.N. climate summit, many Americans who aren’t buying the elites' climate fearmongering were pleased, hopeful that Trump’s move might weaken the globalist plans.
But after the global elites appeared to use the president’s absence to push extreme climate policies, some are wondering if the president could have made a mistake.
“We’ve got Trump in the White House, and of course he actually boycotted the summit. We reached out to the State Department. They told us they deliberately chose not to send anybody. So there was no U.S. delegation for the first time in 30 years of these, and that made for a very interesting situation,” journalist Alex Newman tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck.
“And you know, a lot of Americans thought that was great. Hooray. And a lot of the climate skeptics also thought so. But some of the globalists at the U.N. conference also said, ‘Hey, this is a great opportunity, because the United States is still involved in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, but they’re not here to obstruct passage of an ambitious deal,’” Newman explains.
“‘So let’s do some great stuff, and then when Trump is gone in three and a half years, we’ll impose that on Americans,’” he adds.
And the agreement they passed without Trump’s presence included “mention of a carbon budget.”
“They claim that four-fifths of the CO2 that humans can be allowed to emit has already been emitted,” Newman tells Glenn.
“I think the strategy for these people, Glenn, is ‘Hey, we’ve got Trump for three and a half more years. Let’s just keep our heads down. We know that he doesn’t believe us. We know that the American people don’t believe us. So let’s just not talk about it too loudly,’” he adds.
“So was this a mistake by not showing up?” Glenn asks.
“I don’t know,” Newman answers. “I know some of the people down at the U.N. summit thought this was a good opportunity for them, but you know, Trump’s not done.”
“I’ve spoken with people at EPA; I’ve spoke with people at the State Department, who have said that they are seriously considering the possibility of withdrawing from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,” he continues.
“We have to,” Glenn interjects.
“Yeah, that seems like a no-brainer. … In fact, before he went into the White House, he said one of the top priorities for the MAGA movement and the United States needs to be to decisively crush this climate hysteria hoax,” Newman says, adding, “So he’s really serious about it.”
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Colorado is the eighth-largest natural gas-producing state in the U.S., boasting 10 underground natural gas storage fields with approximately 141 billion cubic feet of combined storage capacity. Roughly seven out of 10 Colorado households use natural gas as their primary home heating source.
Despite the Centennial State's bounty of natural gas and the super-majority of Colorado households' reliance on the affordable warmth it provides, officials are pushing for an electrification of heating in the state and putting utilities in a position where they'll soon have to begin removing customers en masse.
'You're increasing the load on electrification without there being any way to fill it.'
State Democrats successfully passed legislation in 2021 aimed at reducing so-called greenhouse gas emissions through regulatory changes affecting gas distribution utilities.
To satisfy this law, the commissioners on the Colorado Public Utilities Commission — all of whom were appointed by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis — have solicited and approved multiple "clean heat" plans.
Earlier this month, the PUC set GHG emission reduction targets impacting three investor-owned gas utilities — Atmos Energy, Black Hills Energy, and Xcel Energy — requiring them to cut the carbon emissions from their systems by 4% this year; by 22% over the next five years; and by 41% over the next 10 years.
While the commissioners declined to set targets beyond 2035, they noted in their formal decision that "because Colorado has a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 100% by 2050, as compared to a 2005 baseline, we emphasize that clean heat plans submitted by gas utilities must account for that statutorily established future target."
RELATED: 5 truths the climate cult can’t bury any more

Colorado Energy Office director Will Toor is among those who have expressed skepticism about the aggressive nature of the switchover from natural gas to the state's already strained electric grid, a system that Xcel Energy indicated will likely face skyrocketing demand in the form of 400,000 electric vehicles and 300,000 new heat pumps by 2029.
"The 41% target, from our perspective, is a pretty challenging target for utilities," Toor told the Colorado Sun. "We certainly hope that utilities get there. I think we thought that 30% was probably more realistic."
The Colorado Energy Office and the state health department's Air Pollution Control Division reportedly asked for a 30% target by 2035.
In order to meet the new targets, the PUC noted that "utilities can propose to meet the clean heat targets using combinations of energy efficiency, electrification, recovered methane, green hydrogen, thermal energy, and pyrolysis of tires."
Alternatively "customers may voluntarily participate in these plans by taking advantage of rebates and incentives to adopt electric heat pumps or complete energy efficiency upgrades in their homes and businesses," said the PUC.
Before incentives, customers looking to satisfy climate alarmists by electrifying their gas appliances and homes are looking at costs in excess of $20,000 per home, Xcel noted in testimony about the state's so-called clean heat plans.
Jake Fogleman, director of policy at the Independence Institute, a Colorado-based think tank, noted that the targets "will necessarily require removing customers from the system."
"Utilities like Xcel, Black Hills, and Atmos may be able to nibble around the edges of the target by relying on recovered methane, improved pipeline leak detection and repair, and other non-demand-destroying strategies, but such approaches will not be enough to comply with state law," wrote Fogleman. "This all but guarantees that gas customers around the state will soon face higher utility bills to subsidize households into switching from gas to electric heating and appliances."
Those who can afford to make the switch will likely still be looking at jacked prices. Fogleman noted that last year, "Electricity was more than four times more expensive on average per unit of energy delivered to Colorado households" than natural gas.
Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, told the Denver Post, "They're trying to regulate us away from any fossil fuels and taking away our appliances and our heaters. You're increasing the load on electrification without there being any way to fill it."
Republican state Rep. Ty Winter told the Post that when constituents raise concerns about the climate alarmist requirements, he tells them that "the only way to fix this is at the ballot box."
"We’re going to fight this tooth and nail, and we’re going to use every avenue we have," said Winter.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
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!