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!
Over 50,000 climate alarmists from across the globe climbed aboard fuel-guzzling planes, boats, and automobiles and traveled to Belém, Brazil, this month to attend the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference.
On the second-last day of anti-American diatribes and globalist pearl-clutching over the supposed crisis that Bill Gates recently admitted "will not lead to humanity's demise," the conference went up in smoke, at least partly.
'The world is watching Belem.'
Footage circulating online shows a hectic scene: of flames erupting in the pavilion area of the Hangar Convention and Fair Center of the Amazon, where nations and various NGOs had set up their public-facing stands; of security guards blowing whistles and shooing panicked delegates and observers away; and of some individuals attempting to extinguish the growing inferno as it ate a hole in the roof.
One person in the office of the summit presidency confirmed that the blaze had been contained within about 30 minutes, the New York Times noted.
"Firefighters and security teams responded promptly and continue to monitor the site," Cop30 organizers said in a statement obtained by Le Monde.
It's presently unclear what started the fire. No injuries have been reported.
RELATED: Bill Gates does stunning about-face on climate 'doomsday' claims: 'This view is wrong'
The fire proved to be the latest of several issues affecting the conference.
For instance, torrential rainfall at the outset of the conference flooded the entrances to the venue and left certain meeting areas soaked. There were reportedly also complaints of non-functional restrooms and oppressive heat.
In addition to complaining about "inadequate air-conditioning in venue areas" and the "poor condition of the delegation offices provided," Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, whined in a Nov. 12 letter to Andre Correa do Lago, the president of COP30, that the conference's security was substandard. According to Stiell, hundreds of protesters had damaged property and injured staffers.
COP30 was embroiled in scandal even before it began as the result of the local government's decision to cut a four-lane highway through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest to ensure that COP30's participants would enjoy easy motorized transit in and out of the hosting city.
Hours before the fire began, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged negotiators to reach an "ambitious compromise" on an anti-fossil-fuel agenda, stating, "The world is watching Belem."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Former Vice President Kamala Harris is calling for the voting age to be lowered to 16, arguing that Generation Z — a group she says has grown up under the shadow of the “climate crisis” — deserves to have a stronger political voice.
“I think we should reduce the voting age to 16. I’ll tell you why. So Gen-Z, they’re age about 13 through 27. They’ve only known the climate crisis. They’ve coined the term ‘climate anxiety’ to describe fear of not only being able to buy a home, but fear it’ll be wiped out by extreme weather, but fear of having children,” Harris said on “The Diary of a CEO” podcast.
“They know everything that’s happening right now is going to impact them more than anybody older than them for the most part, in terms of how these systems work. If they’re voting, right now, at 16 and up, they’re going to be talking about the importance of climate,” she added.
BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales sees right through Harris’ charade, saying there’s a “reason why they have infiltrated the education systems,” and it’s simply an attempt to “brainwash the youth.”
Especially considering the fact that recently, Harris boldly asserted that the youth are “stupid.”
“What else do we know about this population, 18 through 24? They are stupid. That is why we put them in dormitories and they have a resident assistant. They make really bad decisions,” Harris said in a speech, which drew laughter from the audience.
“And there it is. Really bad decisions like voting for Democrats and Democrat policies. This is why the Democrats are importing their voters from other countries. This is why they advocate for lowering the voting age,” Gonzales comments.
“Because anyone with two functioning brain cells who can communicate and understand the values and principles upon which this country was founded understand that their policies are simply r*****ed,” she continues.
However, Gonzales points out that while Harris is still fearmongering about climate change in hopes that the youth will take it as gospel — even Bill Gates has taken a step back from climate alarmism.
“The guy who was pushing that message for years, one of the main ones, Bill Gates, he’s like, ‘Actually, it’s not — we’re just not going to do this anymore,’” Gonzales says.
“In fact, he even wrote this big essay encouraging his rich friends to shift resources away from the battle against climate change and into like, ‘let’s help the starving kids,’ which I would also caution you about that because Bill Gates is an evil son of a b***h. So don’t trust a word of what he says,” she continues.
“Now why the flip? Because it was all a lie. The climate-change hoax was specifically to control this narrative, to get people fearful and anxious and scared,” she says, adding, “I mean, I would be scared, too, if I actually believed that the world was going to end.”
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates alleged in a 2021 work of climate alarmist agitprop that if humanity failed to eliminate so-called greenhouse gas emissions, "climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic."
In addition to championing a radical upheaval of modern life — advocating for major changes to the way people travel, grow their food, and manufacture goods — in the interest of staving off some prophesied disaster, the billionaire backed the development of an aerosol technology that would dim the sun and trigger a global cooling effect.
'Using more energy is a good thing.'
After spending years fear-mongering about the calamities that would supposedly visit humanity unless governments kneecapped certain industries, regulated into extinction certain behaviors, and redistributed wealth to the right places, Gates has acknowledged that climate change "will not lead to humanity's demise."
In a Monday memo titled "Three tough truths about climate," Gates rejected the "doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us — just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature."
"Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong," Gates wrote just weeks ahead of the 2025 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Brazil, where participants will enjoy easy access to the venue thanks to the government's decision to flatten over 8 miles of rainforest.
Gates suggested that if the world takes "moderate action" to curb climate change — doing what it's presently doing or just slightly more — the Earth's average temperature 75 years from now will be only 2-3 degrees higher than it was in 1850.
RELATED: Al Gore wrong again: Study delivers good news for Arctic ice trends, bad news for climate hucksters
During a 2021 online Harvard Science Book Talk, Gates spoke of dying corals, acidifying oceans, forest fires, and disappearing beaches. He further claimed that unless various changes in global practices were undertaken, "It's going to be essentially unlivable at the Equator by the end of the century."
He has since adopted a more optimistic outlook, suggesting that warming might make Iowa eventually feel more like Texas, and Texas more like northern Mexico, and that life in countries near the equator may require governments "to invest in cooling centers and better early warning systems for extreme heat and weather events" — but that "people will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future."
In addition to admitting that climate doomsday isn't coming and that the global temperature that radicals frequently cite as a metric for universal well-being "doesn't tell us anything about the quality of people's lives," the billionaire stated that "using more energy is a good thing," as "more energy use is a key part of prosperity."
Gates indicated that his newfound optimism about so-called climate change is the result, in part, of recent policy changes, innovation-driven emission cuts, and corresponding readjustments in emissions projections, but his change in tune appears to primarily come down to priorities.
"The doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it's diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world," Gates wrote, stressing later in the document that "the biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Rather than offering the federal judiciary an objective guide to scientific principles, the chapter functions as an ex parte brief for one side of ongoing litigation.'
Colorado's aggressive emissions reductions risk higher energy bills and reduced affordability for working-class residents.
'Congress needs to address these serious shortfalls in our laws to protect American interests and keep foreign influence out of our politics.'
www.theblaze.com
www.breitbart.com
www.theblaze.com