American fertility rate hits all-time low as Dems clamor for foreign replacements



A study published last year in the Lancet revealed that fertility rates have declined in all countries and territories since 1950 and that "human civilization is rapidly converging on a sustained low-fertility reality."

The fertility rate references the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime if she were to experience the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

In 1950, the global fertility rate was 4.84. In 2021, it was 2.23. By the end of this century, it is expected to drop to 1.59 globally — a rate that Britain, Europe, and a number of Asian countries such as South Korea have long been well below.

This trend is catastrophic, especially for those hoping to bequeath their nations to native-born persons as opposed to imported multitudes and for those keen more broadly to stave off a global population collapse. After all, the fertility rate necessary for a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without requiring replacement by foreign nationals is 2.1.

The United States set a fertility record last year — in the wrong direction.

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that U.S. fertility rates dropped to an all-time low in 2024, with 1.599 children being born per woman. By way of comparison, the latest reported fertility rates in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, and China are 1.5, 1.44, 1.26, and 1.01, respectively.

The data released on Thursday indicates that birth rates — the number of births per 1,000 females — dropped for women aged 15-34 between 2023 and 2024 while rising for women aged 40-44, signaling that some women are delaying having kids.

'The number of births has declined 16%; the GFR is down 22% from 2007 to 2024.'

RELATED: Baby wars: Trump voter birth rate outpacing Democrat voters in record numbers

 TanyaJoy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

"U.S. birth certificate data show that, from 2023 to 2024, the number of births increased by 1%, while the [general fertility rate] declined 1%," the CDC stated. "From 2007 (the most recent high) to 2023, the number of births has declined 16%; the GFR is down 22% from 2007 to 2024."

Last year, there were only 3.62 million births registered in the United States — 429,880 fewer births than reported in the U.S. in 2000 and 370,452 fewer births than in 2010, and only 1.5 million more than the known number of illegal aliens who stole over the southern border into the homeland last year.

The U.S. has been on a downward trend for centuries, interrupted only by the mid-20th-century baby boom which saw a fertility rate of 3.7 at its zenith.

The new record was set under the Biden administration, which championed the slaughter of the unborn and the effective sterilization of vulnerable populations while enabling millions of foreign nationals to steal into the country — a demographic substitution that one Democrat referred to as a "replenishment" of the population and critics have long referred to as the "great replacement."

The Trump administration has taken a different tack, not only protecting children from sterilization at the hands of gender ideologues and tackling chemicals linked to infertility, but promoting pro-natalist and pro-family policies.

Vice President JD Vance said in his address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd annual March of Life in January, "I want more babies in the United States of America; I want more happy children in our country; and I want beautiful young men and young women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them."

RELATED: Netflix rebooting 'Captain Planet' to push pagan climate propaganda on new generation of kids

 ullstein bild via Getty Images

With this aim, the Trump administration got Trump accounts — the baby bonus program that has the federal government contribute $1,000 to each qualifying child after the birth — passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and has taken steps to reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization.

'They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth.'

Such policy efforts, the impact of which are not immediately clear but have not produced great results abroad, have enraged the likes of failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said earlier this year of conservatives' supposed plan for America: "It's all in there. Return to the family, the nuclear family, return to being a Christian nation, return to, you know, producing a lot of children."

"[It's] sort of odd because the people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants, and they want to deport them," Clinton added.

Clinton is hardly the only Democrat who figures that immigration is the answer to low American birth rates.

Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, suggested while stumping for Kamala Harris last year that "America is not having enough babies to keep our populations up, so we need immigrants that have been vetted to do work."

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) said in 2022 that the answer to declining birth rates was amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens.

"We're short of workers; we have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to," Schumer said. "The only way we're going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants — the Dreamers and all of them — 'cause our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here."

Elon Musk, among those who have raised the alarm about the risk of population collapse, claimed last year in an interview with Tucker Carlson that the "civilizational suicide" under way in the West was caused in part by climate alarmism.

"The environmental movement in the extreme is fundamentally misanthropic and anti-human," Musk told Tucker Carlson in an interview. "They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth — that earth would be this paradise if only the humans weren't here."

Morgan Stanley analysts told investors in 2021 that the "movement to not have children owing to fears over climate change is growing and impacting fertility rates quicker than any preceding trend in the field of fertility decline."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Netflix rebooting 'Captain Planet' to push pagan climate propaganda on new generation of kids



"Captain Planet and the Planeteers" was an animated television series produced by depopulationist billionaire Ted Turner, founder of the United Nations Foundation and CNN, and fellow climate alarmist Barbara Pyle, the co-founder of one of America's first legal abortion facilities.

The show, which aired in over 100 countries from 1990 to 1996, was a brazen work of pagan liberal propaganda that impressed upon American children various radical notions beyond just demonizing affordable energy, mining, Western industry, and capitalism. It had a hand in shaping the minds of some of those climate alarmists now involved in demonstrations, public tantrums, ruinous leftist policies, and vandalism.

With public concern about changing weather patterns down by double digits in parts of the West, radicals evidently feel it's time for a revival of the green-haired officer: Netflix is set to become home for a live-action adaptation of "Captain Planet."

According to Deadline, the series will be developed by Leonardo DiCaprio's Appian Way, Warner Bros. Television, and Greg Berlanti's Berlanti Productions. Warner Bros. Television, where Berlanti Productions is under a deal, will reportedly be the studio, reported Variety.

DiCaprio — the climate activist who downgraded last year to a $25 million superyacht and who suggested that a normal, recurrent weather phenomenon was an instance of "scary" climate change — will reportedly serve as an executive producer. The series will be written by Tara Hernandez, co-creator of the series "Mrs. Davis."

DiCaprio's involvement is a good indicator that the new show will pick up where the original left off: advancing a leftist worldview and suggesting to young Americans that human beings are harmful to the planet.

RELATED: The climate cult is brainwashing your kids — and you’re paying for it

 Ted Turner. Photo by Mike Pont/FilmMagic

Every episode in the original series opened with this narration:

Our world is in peril. Gaia, the spirit of the Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet. She gives five magic rings to five special young people. From Africa, Kwame with the power of earth. From North America, Wheeler with the power of fire. From the Soviet Union [later changed to Eastern Europe], Linka with the power of wind. From Asia, Gi with the power of water. And from South America, Ma-Ti with the power of heart. When the five powers combined, they summon earth's greatest champion — Captain Planet!

There was nothing subtle about the agenda behind the show, which boasted vocal cameos from big-name actors including Jeff Goldblum, Tim Curry, Martin Sheen, and Sting, and whose titular protagonist threatened to "take pollution down to zero."

In one episode, the showrunners took a page out of the Chinese Communist Party's agenda and advocated for reducing the size of families, suggesting that large populations are unsustainable.

"Did you know the population of the world is now more than 5 billion?" Captain Planet asks one of Gaia's child soldiers.

"Wow! That is a lot of people!" responds one of the children. "And it's increasing by 90 million people each year," says another.

"So when it is your turn to have a family, keep it small," the Soviet and North American characters say in conclusion.

The green-haired protagonist emphasized to those viewers who would grow up to witness a catastrophic population collapse, "The more people there are, the more pressure you put on our planet."

This particular episode, "Population Bomb," borrowed its title from depopulationist Paul Ehrlich's magnum opus, a 1968 book whose faulty thesis helped inspire China's one-child policy, resulting in hundreds of millions of abortions. As with Ehrlich doom-saying about the population bomb, which never went off, his other major anti-human and anti-natalist predictions similarly failed to come true.

RELATED: Climate hysteria sets stage for suicidal behavior: Study

 Photo by ANDY BUCHANAN/AFP via Getty Images

Pyle told Good in 2016 that she made documentaries for years but found that those who watch documentaries are "smart people and also people who are already set in their ways," so she spoke to Turner about "alternative programming routes."

Turner, Pyle, and their fellow travelers apparently settled on kids' programming as the best way to advance their worldview and began pushing their agenda in cartoon form.

Pyle said in an interview with Grist, "We knew there was going to come a time when it would be necessary for an entire generation — your generation — to speak with one voice on behalf of the planet. In some ways, the entire Captain Planet series was about preparing us for this moment."

Gaia's five environmental child soldiers, who were apparently based on people Pyle knew, helped reflect her anti-Western prejudices over the course of the series. Whereas the Soviet character proved time and again to be a brainiac and the Brazilian character was an empathetic soul who could commune with animals, the North American character, Wheeler, was a mistake-prone redhead who apparently needed the most environmental coaching.

Netflix won't be breaking any new ground if its "Captain Planet" is race-obsessed, as Pyle indicated efforts were made the first time around to ensure that the pagan goddess at the center of the show wouldn't be mistaken for a "white Barbie doll," hence her portrayal instead as a "plump beige woman."

Unsurprisingly, the Captain Planet Foundation — the nonprofit founded in 1991 by Turner and Pyle — is committed to DEI.

Netflix declined to comment about the project to Deadline or Variety.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The climate cult is brainwashing your kids — and you’re paying for it



America’s education system is facing a growing list of challenges — from plummeting test scores and the lingering hangover from COVID-era remote classes to teacher shortages and mounting public frustration over gender ideology.

But take it from a former teacher: Another grave problem is haunting our classrooms. Climate extremists have infiltrated American schools, and they’re indoctrinating our children in radical ideology. It’s time the Department of Justice took action to stop it.

I worked for many years as a teacher and saw firsthand just how deeply rooted this climate ideology is in our classrooms.

Fortunately, they’ve taken the first step. In May, the Justice Department filed lawsuits against four states for allegedly funneling public funds into unconstitutional climate litigation. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the litigation “burdensome and ideologically motivated,” and she’s right. The troubling part is: It’s happening in our public school classrooms too.

If the Trump administration is serious about rooting out taxpayer-funded climate extremism, the next logical step is clear: Launch an investigation into the climate ideologues flooding our education system with fearmongering and pseudoscience.

Indoctrinated K-12 classrooms

Just look at what’s happening in New York City. In the summer of 2024, Columbia University partnered with NYC Public Schools to hold a four-day workshop for teachers called “Integrating Climate Education in N.Y.C. Public Schools.” The aim should be clear from the name: Teachers were guided on how to interweave climate hysteria into their lesson plans.

A reporter later visited a public school in the Bronx where a teacher was reading her students a book about flooding in Africa. “And what’s causing all these rains and storms and floods?” she asked. “Carbon,” an 8-year-old answered.

RELATED: Trump’s climate policy shift could save American farmers from disaster

  SimonSkafar via Getty Images

This isn’t isolated to New York. In 2020, New Jersey became the first state in the nation to mandate that climate change be taught at all grade levels. It begins in kindergarten, where even the lighthearted activity of dancing is used to “examine global issues, including climate change as a topic for dance.” And it’s integrated into every other school subject — from computer science to physical education.

Other states are working to incorporate climate change into their curricula. California’s Assembly Bill 285, passed in 2023, requires science teachers to instruct students beginning in the first grade “on the causes and effects of climate change, and on the methods to mitigate and adapt to climate change.”

This isn’t science; it’s political conditioning masquerading as curriculum.

Take it from me: I worked for many years as a teacher and saw firsthand just how deeply rooted this climate ideology is in our classrooms — and that was before state governments began passing their mandates. What I witnessed wasn’t education but indoctrination, and it proved very successful.

Radicalized universities

Later, I left K-12 to teach as a college professor, and what I found was troubling. My freshman students widely believed the world was going to end within their lifetimes and were emotionally paralyzed by it. They didn’t want to debate other students or hear the other side of the argument. Instead, out of anger, they wanted to shame and cancel those who thought differently.

Even the most milquetoast of pushback was met by my students with confusion and contempt. This is what happens when children are indoctrinated from a very young age.

The effects of climate brainwashing are so widespread that psychologists even have a term for it: climate anxiety. The New York Times recently profiled the case of a woman paralyzed by mundane activities, like eating nuts.

They came wrapped in plastic, often in layers of it, that she imagined leaving her house and traveling to a landfill, where it would remain through her lifetime and the lifetime of her children.

In 2021, the first study on climate anxiety was released. It found that young children all over the world had been affected. Of those surveyed, more than half reported feeling sad, anxious, angry, and guilty over the climate, while a full 75% said the future looked frightening.

Leading academic institutions like Yale and Harvard have since accepted that climate anxiety is inevitable and sought to provide therapy to their students. But this is like an arsonist claiming fires are inevitable and investing in more garden hoses. Climate anxiety isn’t inevitable; it’s a direct result of convincing our children that a made-up apocalypse is inevitable.

Root out climate hysteria

Teaching kids how to care for the environment is not wrong. I was part of a generation taught to recycle, respect nature, and preserve the land for future use. But today’s curriculum isn’t about stewardship — it’s about shame. It’s not about science — it’s about fear.

It’s time for the Justice Department to broaden its investigation into the public education bureaucracies, state curriculum mandates, and activist organizations pushing climate panic in the classroom. Climate extremism shouldn’t be government policy, and it certainly shouldn’t be taught as gospel to our kids.

Let’s stop the fear, stop the brainwashing, and bring common sense back to the classroom.

This 7% of Earth’s surface burns more fuel than anywhere



The ruling class trades in carbon outrage like it’s gold. Sanctimony fuels its crusade against oil, gas, and coal — never mind that those very fuels built the modern world. The comforts we take for granted — from longer lives and stocked shelves to clean water and lifesaving medicine — all trace back to the energy abundance that hydrocarbons made possible.

Still, the decarbonization faithful press forward. They dream of a carbon-free Eden, even as the global power grid, still humming on fossil fuels, refuses to cooperate.

Critics keep forecasting a shift away from fossil fuels. Reality keeps proving them wrong.

You won’t find a clearer contradiction than in the Yuxi Circle.

Draw a circle with a 2,485-mile radius around the southern Chinese city of Yuxi. British geographer Alasdair Rae did just that — and inside it resides 55% of the world’s population: some 4.3 billion people crammed into just 7% of Earth’s surface. The region includes China, India, much of Southeast Asia, and parts of Pakistan. Some of it — like the Tibetan Plateau and the Taklamakan Desert — is barren. But the rest is packed with cities, factories, and the aspirations of hundreds of millions clawing their way toward modern life.

Why does this matter? Because this region now anchors the world’s biggest fight over energy, growth, and climate policy.

While bureaucrats in Brussels sip espresso and activists glue themselves to the pavement in London, the real action plays out in Asia’s economic engine. In cities like Shanghai, Delhi, and Tokyo, energy demand soars — and fossil fuels do the heavy lifting. Coal and gas plants keep the lights on, while wind and solar trail far behind.

China burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. India burns more than the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom combined. The 10 ASEAN countries rank third. Oil use tells the same story: China and India sit alongside the U.S. atop the global leaderboard of consumption. Economic growth, it turns out, runs not on hashtags but on hydrocarbons.

Critics keep forecasting a shift away from fossil fuels. Reality keeps proving them wrong.

Hundreds of millions in the Yuxi Circle are still striving for what Westerners call a “decent life.” That means refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioning — and with them, a dramatic spike in electricity demand.

RELATED: Climate orthodoxy punishes the West

  Photo by Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

For context: The average American consumes 77,000 kilowatt-hours of energy each year. The average Indian uses a 10th of that. A Bangladeshi? Just 3% of what the average Norwegian consumes.

Now multiply that gap by a population of billions, and you begin to understand what’s coming.

The living room revolution is only the start. An industrial boom is building behind it — factories, office towers, and shopping malls all hungry for electricity. The coming surge in energy use across the Yuxi Circle will make the West’s climate targets look like a quaint relic of the past.

In this part of the world, the green fantasy runs headfirst into human need. Wind and solar can’t meet the moment. Coal, oil, and gas can — and do.

Just as they did for the West, these fuels now power the rise of the rest. And no amount of Western guilt or climate alarm will change that.

Big Oil SUED for ‘climate homicide’



"Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil for Climate Deaths" is a study that was released by Harvard Environmental Law Review in 2023, and BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere calls it “the most influential piece of propaganda in this particular form.”

The article finds that in jurisdictions across the United States, fossil fuel companies could be prosecuted for every type of homicide, short of first-degree murder. It also concludes that prosecutions could offer highly effective remedies that prosecutors could be motivated to seek.

“Hey, we can find a way for climate deaths to be prosecuted as homicide, basically under every jurisdiction in America, as long as you don’t say it’s first-degree murder,” Stu mocks on “Stu Does America.” “And then in addition to that, you guys should note these will be good remedies for the policies that we want. Right.”


Now, a few years later, the term “climate homicide” is beginning to rear its head.

“The model is lawsuits against the cigarette companies, but individuals smoke cigarettes sold by particular companies. The theory here is that the fossil fuel companies have injured everyone in the entire world now and in the future by means of any business operations with any customers, with the chain of causation running through the atmosphere and climate of the entire planet,” Dan McLaughlin wrote in an article for the National Review.

“It is completely ridiculous,” Stu comments. “But those cases are now popping up.”

One oil company is being sued for the 2021 death of a woman, Juliana Leon, during a heatwave. Her daughter has sued seven oil and gas companies claiming wrongful death, with her suit alleging that “they failed to warn the public of the dangers of the planet-warming emissions produced by their products and that they funded decades-long campaigns to obscure the scientific consensus on global warming.”

“All of this just popped out there as if it's a complete fact,” Stu says, noting that Leon began to go after the oil companies after being approached by a nonprofit group called the Center for Climate Integrity, which helps assemble and promote cases against large oil and gas companies.

“So this is just a left-wing typical operation here,” Stu says.

The supposed victim, Leon, was on her way back from a doctor's appointment after having bariatric surgery two weeks prior, when the air conditioning in her car broke.

“So she had just gone through a very traumatic event with her body, she was quite vulnerable to heat stroke, and of course, the car’s AC broke,” Stu explains, adding, “Not only had she had the surgery, she hadn’t eaten any food in two weeks. Which, again, would probably make you very vulnerable.”

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Researchers advocate using existing aircraft, sulfur to block sunlight amid UK-backed trials



A study published Monday in the American Geophysical Union's peer-reviewed journal Earth's Future suggested, largely on the basis of different aerosol injection simulations, that it might be worthwhile using existing commercial jetliners to pollute the skies with toxic sulfur dioxide particles in order to dim the sun and thereby cool the planet.

Researchers from University College London indicated that weaponizing jets like the Boeing 777F — roughly 36 of which are produced a year — against the sun would would mean "lower technical barriers," a potential increase in "the number of actors able to produce a substantial global cooling using SAI [stratospheric aerosol injection]," and an earlier potential start date for this master plan.

They acknowledged, however, that the use of existing aircraft for the purposes of SAI would be less efficient than having specialized aircraft flying at altitudes of over 12 miles to conduct dumps and more likely to generate undesirable side effects.

'Dousing our citizens, our waterways and landscapes with toxins.'

According to the study, "Low-altitude SAI with high-latitude and seasonal injection, could achieve a substantial global cooling effect using existing large jetliners with a service ceiling of 13 km."

The researchers estimated "a global cooling of 0.6°C for an injection of 12 Tg at 13 km altitude at 60° North and South, in the local spring and summer." In other words, climate meddlers might be able to cool the planet down just over half a degree with a seasonal dumping of over 13.2 million tons of sulfur at the latitudes of Anchorage, Alaska, and the southern tip of South America.

In effect, they would be emulating the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and caused a rapid half-degree drop in global temperatures. According to NASA, this drop lasted for two years until the sulfate dropped out of the atmosphere.

"We find this strategy would have only 35% of the forcing efficiency of a conventional high-altitude-subtropical injection, which would lead to a proportionate increase in the side-effects of SAI per unit cooling, such as human exposure to descending particulate matter," wrote the researchers.

In addition to "dousing our citizens, our waterways and landscapes with toxins," as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. put it last month, the embrace of this strategy might increase the "risk of unilateral or poorly planned deployment," said the researchers.

Dozens of U.S. states have taken steps to ban geoengineering and weather modification activities. Earlier this month, the Florida Senate passed legislation that would protect the Sunshine State's skies from climate alarmists' shadowy designs. The United Kingdom has gone in the other direction.

Blaze News recently reported that the U.K. is throwing its approval and weight behind solar geoengineering experiments to be conducted by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.

'That means that we would need to use three times the amount of aerosol to have the same effect on global temperature.'

Even with America's geoengineering bans, the homeland could potentially be impacted by foreign SAI experiments should the U.K. or another national entity decide to unilaterally execute SAI operations ahead of schedule, thanks to the embrace of modified jetliners.

A 2017 study published in Nature Communications indicated that SAI only in the northern hemisphere might increase droughts, hurricanes, and storms elsewhere, and concluded that "the impacts of SG would not be entirely confined to the perturbed region."

Lead author Alistair Duffey on the new study in Earth's Future told Phys.org, "Solar geoengineering comes with serious risks and much more research is needed to understand its impacts. However, our study suggests that it is easier to cool the planet with this particular intervention than we thought. This has implications for how quickly stratospheric aerosol injection could be started and by who."

"There are downsides to this polar low-altitude strategy," continued Duffey. "At this lower altitude, stratospheric aerosol injection is about one-third as effective. That means that we would need to use three times the amount of aerosol to have the same effect on global temperature, increasing side effects such as acid rain. The strategy would also be less effective at cooling the tropics, where the direct vulnerability to warming is highest."

Duffey added that "climate change is a serious problem," intimating that policymakers might weight the perceived threat of changing weather patterns as more concerning than the threats posed dumping chemicals overhead and generating acidic precipitation.

Columbia University's Climate School noted last April, "Studies show that stratospheric aerosol injection could weaken the stratospheric ozone layer, alter precipitation patterns, and affect agriculture, ecosystem services, marine life, and air quality. Moreover, the impacts and risks would vary by how and where it is deployed, the climate, ecosystems, and the population."

Matthew Henry of the University of Exeter, one of Duffey's co-authors, made clear to Phys.org that even with solar geoengineering, climate alarmists will still want to continue with their project of social engineering: "Stratospheric aerosol injection is certainly not a replacement for greenhouse gas emission reductions as any potential negative side effects increase with the amount of cooling: we can only achieve long-term climate stability with net zero."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

It Takes A Lot Of Jet Fuel To Throw A Funeral For A Climate Alarmist Pope

If Francis’ climate beliefs were ever to become policy prescriptions, most of the world would die, starting with the poor, elderly, and sick.

Navy Scraps Biden-Era ‘Climate Action’ Plan, Returns Focus To Warfighting

The U.S. Navy officially scrapped a Biden-era “climate action” plan for the force on Tuesday, signifying the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to refocus the military towards warfighting. “Today, I’m focusing on the warfighters first, and I’m rescinding the Biden administration’s climate action program. Our focus needs to be on lethality and our warfighters,” Navy Secretary […]

Climate hysteria sets stage for suicidal behavior: Study



Climate alarmists are future-oriented in their activism. It turns out, however, that their obsession may, in some cases, ensure that they will never meet the imminent world they tried to shape with demonstrations, public tantrums, ruinous leftist policies, and vandalism.

A paper by European and Canadian researchers published Friday in the journal Nature Medicine examined the "associations between climate-related hazards and the spectrum of suicidal behaviors, from suicidal ideation to self-harm and suicide mortality."

Citing previous studies, the researchers noted that, unsurprisingly, people directly exposed to extreme weather events may experience an increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Slow-moving albeit similarly devastating environmental phenomena appear to similarly have an emotionally destabilizing impact on some individuals — the Indian farmer, for instance, who is driven to despair by drought, low crop yields, and the prospect of destitution or even starvation.

The study suggested, however, that individuals who are not directly impacted by changing weather patterns have also been observed getting bent out of shape to the point of depression and suicidality.

"Negative psychological responses related to the observed and anticipated impacts of climate change, such as climate anxiety, eco-anxiety and climate-related guilt have also emerged as a potential risk factor for poor mental health and suicide-related behavior," said the study, adding that international surveys have indicated "concern about climate change is associated with feelings of despair, hopelessness, anger, frustration, and guilt, especially among younger populations."

'Exposure to the report had a weaker association with perceived threat and climate change concern among politically right-leaning individuals.'

A study published in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources noted that while so-called climate change "has long been seen as psychologically distant from many people and therefore as a rather non-emotional problem," this view has changed in recent years, partly as a consequence of climate alarmist propaganda pushed in the media and in schools — propaganda that inevitably oversells bad news and overlooks good news, such as carbon emissions' greening of the planet.

"Many people experience climate change and other global environmental problems indirectly, or vicariously, through media representations rather than from direct exposure," said the study. "Exposure to climate change information through the media plays an important role in determining how worried people are about climate change."

A 2019 study found that Norwegians' exposure to an alarmist United Nations report on climate change was associated "with greater perceived threat from climate change and increased climate change concern."

The induction of concern worked particularly well with left-leaning individuals:

Exposure to the report had a weaker association with perceived threat and climate change concern among politically right-leaning individuals, compared with their left-leaning counterparts, and there was no association between exposure to the report and climate change concern among individuals who self-identified as being on the far-right end of the political spectrum.

These manufactured concerns can turn malignant and metastasize.

A 2020 American study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology found that climate change anxiety is not uncommon, particularly among younger adults, and is correlated with emotional responses — responses that apparently drive some victims of propaganda to swear off having children. A 2021 Lancet-published survey of 10,000 youths ages 16-25 indicated that 39% of respondents expressed hesitancy about procreating on account of climate change.

The study published last week in Nature Medicine identified various pathways from "climate-related hazards to suicidal behaviors."

For those in the camp of the indirectly impacted, such as the Norwegian cohort confronted with the U.N. concern-mongers' report, chronic, vicarious exposure to climate change can result in lowered well-being, which in turn sets the stage for suicidal behaviors.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden admin hindered efforts to cancel grants to climate groups under criminal investigation



In the wake of President Donald Trump's landslide electoral victory, the Biden administration apparently reworked an Environmental Protection Agency grant agreement with an Obama administration staffer's climate alarmist group in order to make it difficult for the incoming administration to reclaim a $7 billion award.

Climate United Fund, one of the recipients of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program that is now under criminal investigation and getting axed by the Trump EPA, is now apparently exploiting that strategic hindrance in a desperate effort to get its hands on the money promised by the Biden administration.

Background

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency announced the discovery last month that the Biden administration parked roughly $20 billion at Citibank as part of a climate-branded scheme created under the Inflation Reduction Act that was "purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight" for the benefit of fellow travelers.

The agency indicated on March 2 that it was cooperating with the Department of Justice and FBI's ongoing criminal investigation into the matter and that it had also referred the "concerning matter of financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and oversight failures" in the GGRF program to the EPA's Office of Inspector General.

One of the intended recipients of the funds was a new nonprofit linked to staunch Biden ally Stacey Abrams, the failed gubernatorial candidate who sided with alleged domestic terrorists in 2023 and was slapped in January with what the Georgia State Ethics Commission indicated was likely "the largest Ethics Fine ever imposed by any State Ethics Commission in the country related to an election and campaign finance case."

The Abrams-linked nonprofit, Power Forward Communities, was awarded a $2 billion grant last year as part of the GGRF program despite being just a few months old and having no history of competently managing funds.

Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of the energy advocacy organization Power the Future, told Blaze News that the obligation of billions of taxpayer dollars to PFC and other brand-new climate groups with minimal or no track records of accomplishments "screams corruption and is absolutely worthy of IRS and DOJ investigations."

'EPA has determined that these deficiencies pose an unacceptable risk to the efficient and lawful execution of this grant.'

"I've always enjoyed the show 'Shark Tank,' and since I spend about half my life on the road and I'm in hotels a lot, it's kind of my go-to program to watch at nighttime," said Turner. "The sharks always ask about earnings before they make an investment, and that's usually where they will decide what they're going to do. Stacey Abrams' group had received $100 in donations and then got a $2 billion grant. The math tells me that that is a 20 million-times earnings investment. I've never never seen a shark make an investment at 20 million times earnings."

"It shows you the frivolity of the people in these agencies, the true political nature of grant-making, and it also explains the ire these folks have towards Elon Musk and DOGE — the ire that's turned into complete violence," continued Turner. "This is their lifeblood, and it's being taken away from them, but it never should have been theirs to begin with."

Climate United Fund's money troubles

Climate United Fund, an organization formed in 2024 and led by Beth Bafford, a former special assistant in the Obama administration's Office of Management and Budget, similarly planned to ride the last gravy train out of the Biden administration.

According to court documents, the FBI recommended that Citibank freeze CUF's account in late February, citing "credible information" that it was among a number of accounts that had "been involved in possible criminal violations" including wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

On March 4, the Treasury Department directed Citibank not to disburse funds from the GGRF accounts, including that belonging to CUF, citing the EPA's "concerns regarding potential fraud and/or conflicts of interest related to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund."

When it discovered that it couldn't drain its slush fund and that it might not ultimately receive any of its $6.97 billion GGRF award, CUF — like other groups impacted by the EPA's funding freeze and grant terminations — filed a lawsuit on March 8 against both the EPA and Citibank, alleging that the "EPA has acted to prevent Citibank from dispersing [sic] funds, harming Climate United, its borrowers, and the communities they serve."

The EPA, which proved willing to battle it out in the court, subsequently notified the plaintiffs that it was terminating their grants, stating that "following a comprehensive review and consistent with multiple ongoing independent federal investigations into programmatic fraud, waste, abuse, and conflicts of interest ... EPA has determined that these deficiencies pose an unacceptable risk to the efficient and lawful execution of this grant."

'They're just fighting for their own entity's survival because they don't want to get a real job.'

According to the grant agreement between the climate groups and the EPA, the awards can be terminated only if:

  • "a grant recipient engages in 'substantial' noncompliance such that 'effective performance' is 'materially impaired'";
  • "a recipient engages in 'material misrepresentation of eligibility status'"; or
  • "for 'waste, fraud, or abuse.'"

An Obama judge ruled Tuesday that the EPA could not reclaim the Biden-era grants. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan did not, however, enable CUF and other climate alarmist groups to withdraw the billions of taxpayer dollars they believe they are owed.

The climate groups' efforts to get their hands on the taxpayer funds have dragged some questionable details about the grants into the light.

EPA's diminished agency

Sarah Bedford of the Washington Examiner highlighted that a month after Trump crushed Kamala Harris at the polls, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency amended its grant agreement with Climate United Fund, making it harder to revoke the award.

Eric Amidon, chief of staff of the EPA, noted in a Monday court filing that the agency's grant agreement with CUF originally issued in August did not "define the terms 'materially impaired' or 'waste, fraud, and abuse,' and used the terms in a manner that left EPA with significant discretion to administer the agreement." However, Amidon noted that in December 2024, the EPA issued an amended grant agreement to CUF that altered its compliance and termination provisions and defined the above terms.

As a consequence of the changes, the EPA effectively lost its contractual authority "to find CUF in immediate noncompliance for failing to report the expenditure of grant funds, audit results, and project status"; "to oversee subrecipient compliance with statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements"; and to spend grant funds only on allowable activities," said Amidon.

Amidon also indicated that the Biden administration's post-election definitions for "materially impaired" and "waste, fraud, and abuse" further tied the EPA's hands, restricting the agency's ability to terminate the award "absent evidence of severe criminal or civil violations."

Climate United Fund has leaned on the agreement in its lawsuit against the EPA and Citibank.

"This is absolutely intentional," Turner told Blaze News, referring to the broader alleged "gold bars" plot. "This was all very deliberate in preparation for what the Trump administration would do."

Brent Efron, a former EPA special adviser for implementation, was caught on hidden camera before Trump took office claiming that the agency was dumping billions of dollars in grants to nonprofits to make sure the Biden administration's climate initiatives remained afloat even after the Democrats lost their footing in the White House.

"Now it's how to get the money out as fast as possible before they [Trump administration] come in," said Efron. "It's like we're on the Titanic and we're throwing gold bars off the edge."

"In the grants process, grants can always be amended by the grantor. I deal with donors who want to fund certain projects, and circumstances change, and therefore the nature of the grant changes. That's understandable," said Turner. "But it's never been about an election, and that's the only criteria that changed with some of these groups that were awarded grants — Trump was now going to be president. And so it does raise a larger question: What was the grant ever about? What was the grant's nature? Because if it was combatting racial disparities in the climate space or whatever the phraseology they used, none of that has changed. Only thing that changed was the political circumstances, and so changing the grant based on politics sort of de facto proves that the nature of the grant is purely political."

Turner suggested that the groups now fighting over the frozen slush fund are "fighting for the quality of life that the taxpayers were awarding them. They're not fighting for groups. They're not fighting for maligned or marginalized individuals. They're just fighting for their own entity's survival because they don't want to get a real job."

Blaze News reached out to the EPA for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!