Green policies fuel riches for elites, pain for the rest



Azerbaijan’s government has some troubling practices, and the world should pay attention. Whether you believe in a climate emergency or not — and especially if you do — the shenanigans at the ongoing COP29 climate conference in this authoritarian Caucasus nation should raise alarms.

Recent U.N. climate conferences, including COP28 in the United Arab Emirates and COP29 in Azerbaijan, reveal a troubling trend: Global environmental activists seem unbothered by the severe wealth inequality their policies exacerbate. These activists actively collaborate with state oil tycoons to secure their own gains, often at the expense of ordinary people.

Climate alarmism remains a luxury belief held predominantly by wealthy elites, not ordinary people.

The authoritarian regimes of the UAE and Azerbaijan epitomize this disparity. In Azerbaijan, the average GDP per person is about 18 times higher than the median income. In contrast, this ratio in Western nations typically ranges between four and five. These glaring inequalities underscore the cozy relationship between government elites and global environmental activists.

Climate activists and state oil moguls actively disregard free markets and consumer preferences. Environmentalists routinely condemn consumer choices they deem “wasteful” or “unsustainable” and push policies that force compliance rather than encourage voluntary participation. Likewise, state oil companies reject competition at home and collude internationally to manipulate oil production when it increases their profits.

Both groups enrich themselves at others’ expense. Taxpayers, not attendees, fund COP29. National delegations draw from public budgets, while global NGOs like the United Nations and World Bank use funds from member nations to support the conference.

Oil barons in the UAE and Azerbaijan exploit natural resources for personal gain. Officials use state power to secure private wealth while denying citizens their rights. These oil-rich nations exemplify extractive institutions, where elites monopolize resources and leave the public to bear the cost.

The environmental agenda seeks to do the same — transferring hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers to narrowly owned wind, solar, and other green projects. Rather than serving customers and receiving voluntary payment, both environmentalists and government oil barons would rather extract resources from people by force.

COP29 participants explicitly demand that wealthy nations’ taxpayers “pay up” through climate reparations. These funds will likely enrich corrupt officials instead of benefiting the poor and vulnerable who are supposed to receive them. Decades of foreign aid being diverted into government officials’ pockets provide ample reason to reject this policy.

The irony of hosting the U.N. climate change conference in oil-producing countries runs deep. Participants create massive carbon footprints through air travel, food and goods consumption, and electricity use. Their activities rely on the very oil production they criticize, in countries they now place at the forefront of climate planning.

Climate alarmism remains a luxury belief held predominantly by wealthy elites, not ordinary people. These elites can more easily handle the higher costs created by environmental restrictions, unlike the poor and middle class. Moreover, elites are more likely to profit from net-zero policies, which subsidize solar panels, electric vehicles, and billion-dollar carbon offset and green energy schemes.

It’s time to end the self-serving theatrics of U.N. climate conferences pretending to save the planet. Expanding fossil fuel exploration and development in the United States offers a far better path. Cheap energy means greater freedom and prosperity for all.

Forget climate — nukes are the real threat to humanity



Plenty of things will kill you, but one will do it the quickest, and since August 1945, that’s been nuclear weapons. Climate change? Sure, it’s a concern. But the climate has been changing since Noah loaded up the ark. If we’re talking about what could literally wipe humanity off the map before we even get to debate the weather, then we’ve got to deal with the nukes first.

Donald Trump was dead-on in his appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience" that nuclear disarmament is crucial, and he understands that every dollar we pour into foreign conflicts could be better spent protecting what we’ve got here at home.

Seek peace, be strong by practicing restraint, and use what we have to build up our communities.

The truth is that our foreign policy today is more about profit than patriotism. You’ve got the Federal Reserve churning out funny money like there’s no tomorrow, funding wars that fill the pockets of fat cats who’ve never seen a battlefield. The most decorated Marine in U.S. history said it best: “War is a racket. Always has been.”

Fiat dollars are no longer backed by the decades-long exclusive use in the oil trade. These increasingly borrowed dollars fuel military-industrial schemes that create more conflict than solutions. Defense contractors rake in billions while average Americans watch their tax dollars go up in smoke — sometimes literally — thousands of miles away.

In several recent cases, we’ve seen a meme come to life before our eyes as Israel launched U.S.-made missiles to intercept Iranian drones and Hezbollah rockets that were effectively paid for with fungible U.S. dollars released by the Biden-Harris administration.

Psalm 135 says it plainly: When you worship gold and silver, you lose your soul and your reason. In our case, it’s worse, because at least gold and silver have inherent value. Fiat money is worth less than the paper it's printed on, except to those who put their faith in it.

I’m not saying every Democrat is worshiping a golden idol in his or her basement, but a foreign policy that constantly chases profits abroad looks a lot like a false god to me. By prioritizing war over peace and intervention over independence, the left has handed over the treasury to the corporate media and many bad actors within the military-industrial complex, both of which profit from every bomb dropped and every soldier and sailor deployed. This is a bipartisan problem in Congress, but there’s an unmistakable, stark policy difference between Harris and Trump that will be decided this week.

Our first step out of this mess? Elect leaders who see the whole picture, who understand that de-escalation should be our top priority but that we must also be strong and secure at home. We need folks in office who put American lives and well-being ahead of corporate interests and war contracts.

Trump’s call for nuclear restraint, and a foreign policy that prioritizes our own soil over endless foreign wars, is one we’d do well to heed. He has talked about these ideas for the better part of a decade. What I’ll be hoping and praying for is that he has, in fact, learned from his first term about the importance of hiring the right people to enact his vision of U.S. foreign policy and not warhawks like John Bolton.

But for the long haul, it will take more than a president with a responsible foreign policy. As a nation, we need to stop chasing false gods, whether they come in the form of cash or influence, and start asking ourselves what Jesus would have us do. The answer is as old as the hills: Seek peace, be strong by practicing restraint, and use what we have to build up our communities. That’s how we may save first our country, maybe the world, and also our souls.

If Trump wins, the Green New Deal must go



Health insurance premiums, both individual and employer-sponsored, have more than doubled since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Today, Americans continue to face the heavy burden of high health care costs, partly because Republicans previously promised to repeal the law but failed to follow through when they regained power.

Now, eight years later, Republicans face a similar challenge with the Biden administration’s Green New Deal. If they do not fully repeal it, the rising costs of energy will follow the trajectory of health care expenses.

When it comes to dismantling sweeping socialist programs enacted by Democratic presidents, we rarely get second chances.

Immediate conservative action is crucial. Lobbyists, donors, and trade associations close to Republican officials seem intent on preserving the key aspects of the law. Goldman Sachs reports that, without statutory caps on tax credits, subsidies for inefficient energy sources under the inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act could reach $1.2 trillion by 2032. Although much of this funding remains unspent, conservatives need to take swift action to rescind the law before it accelerates the shift from reliable energy sources to unworkable alternatives.

One might expect the oil and gas industry to strongly oppose these subsidies. Yet, like many sectors in today’s venture socialist environment, they find ways to profit from government interventions. Their approach is, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” Similar to how they benefited from trading credits tied to the ethanol mandate — ultimately convincing Donald Trump to maintain the mandate — they are now seeking gains from the complex and costly carbon capture program established by the new law.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Exxon Mobil, Phillips 66, and Occidental Petroleum are negotiating with the Trump campaign to preserve subsidies that serve their interests. They fear losing tax credits crucial for their investments in renewable fuels, carbon capture, and hydrogen — expensive technologies that require U.S. support during their initial stages.

Driven by regulations, subsidies, and a shift toward green energy, Exxon and Chevron have invested over $30 billion in carbon capture, hydrogen, and biofuels. Meanwhile, Phillips 66 aims to leverage “renewable fuels” credits to increase vegetable oil production — an ingredient now widely considered harmful to humans — over refining crude oil.

“If we win, we need to take a scalpel, not an ax, to the IRA,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a liberal Republican from an energy-producing state.

In August, 18 House Republicans sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging that the GOP maintain “the energy tax regime,” which includes substantial subsidies for impractical energy sources. This followed announcements from the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute that they would oppose any efforts to fully dismantle the Biden-Harris administration’s green energy policies.

For those who remember the fight over Obamacare, this situation feels like déjà vu. Republican special interests aim to preserve the core elements of the controversial law while seeking more flexibility to produce oil and gas by removing drilling taxes and regulations. The issue is that with substantial funding backing these inefficient energy forms, resource misallocation will continue to push the risky “transition” and hurt consumers.

Trump must remain as bold as he is clear in advocating for the complete repeal of all subsidies. His stance should be: “No headwinds and no tailwinds to any single industry.” In a low-regulation, non-subsidized environment, industries that can adapt and succeed will thrive, ultimately benefiting consumers. There remains ample opportunity for companies to profit under policies that support the development of oil and gas pipelines, LNG terminals, oil refineries, and a revival of coal production.

After decades of subsidizing and mandating “renewable” fuels, it’s time to stop treating this rent-seeking scheme as an emerging industry. Instead, we should demand that it prove its worth on a level playing field. If wind, solar, electric vehicles, and carbon capture can thrive without special treatment, then great — let them.

However, if we continue subsidizing failure, it will only result in shifting our national grid to less reliable sources, which won't support us during natural disasters. This issue will be compounded by the government’s push for electric vehicles. Building an electric grid dependent on weak energy sources while increasing demand for EVs is a recipe for disaster. All these subsidies must end.

Imagine facing hurricane season, power restoration, and disaster recovery with a grid and vehicles powered by energy sources that wouldn’t survive in a fair market. Compare Florida's swift power restoration after hurricanes to Texas’ struggle during the 2021 winter grid failure. The $66 billion that Texas, a state under Republican control, spent on wind and solar left it reliant on a grid that couldn’t withstand a cold snap, leading to 200 deaths.

Mario Loyola of the Heritage Foundation noted in the Wall Street Journal that among the five largest states, Florida relies most on natural gas, despite having no natural gas reserves. By contrast, California, Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania have ample reserves but choose to rely on expensive, inefficient, and undependable energy sources.

As a result, “Compared with Florida, residential electricity is 27% more expensive in Pennsylvania, 60% more expensive in New York, and 137% more expensive in California. Even pro-energy, GOP-controlled Texas has higher electricity costs than Florida, partly due to its large renewable energy sector, which increases operational costs and complexity.”

If we fail to repeal the Green New Deal subsidies, our entire country will mirror New York and California’s energy landscape. We cannot repeat the mistake made with Obamacare. We need to dismantle this law in its early stages before it gains “popularity” and changes the market forever.

Republicans should use budget reconciliation, which bypasses the Senate filibuster, to fully repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. This effort requires a firm commitment from Trump, starting with appointing a pro-consumer leader to oversee the Departments of Energy, Interior, and the EPA — not pro-subsidy, anti-carbon figures like North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who is seeking one of those roles.

When it comes to dismantling sweeping socialist programs enacted by Democratic presidents, we rarely get second chances. There are no do-overs. This is one opportunity we cannot afford to miss.

The Now-Forgotten ‘Climate Crisis’ Was Just A Cynical Ploy For Democrats To Gain Power

Kamala Harris and the Democrats have gone strangely silent about the “climate crisis” they warned was an existential threat a few years ago.

Activists lean on Hollywood to load movies with more climate alarmist propaganda



For years, the LGBT activist outfit GLAAD has waged a pressure campaign to get Hollywood filmmakers to produce as much non-straight content as possible.

GLAAD's annual Studio Responsibility Index assesses the output of major film distributors and determines just how many have dutifully conformed. Last year, GLAAD determined that 100 of the 350 films released in 2022 by 10 key distributors, including the Walt Disney Company and Netflix, contained a non-straight character and 12 contained transvestite characters.

Sony was among the companies castigated for not having enough "LGBTQ-inclusive" films — only eight of its 38 releases assessed in the report met fulfilled activists' criteria.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has played its part, establishing "inclusion" criteria that films and filmmakers must satisfy in order to qualify for awards. Those who fail to conform will be excluded.

The apparent purpose of this exercise is not only conformity but to increasingly expose the population to activist-preferred ideas and imagery, thereby normalizing them in the public consciousness. LGBT propaganda is not, however, the only game in town.

'We are living through a crisis that touches every aspect of our lives, and therefore has a place in every contemporary story.'

The Buck Lab for Climate and Environment at Maine's Colby College and the pronoun-providing team of so-called experts and "storytellers" at the Los Angeles-based consultancy firm Good Energy, recently published a report entitled, "Climate Reality On-Screen: The Climate Crisis in Popular Films, 2013-22," along with a corresponding "tool" that can be used to evaluate whether filmmakers have dutifully advanced climate alarmism in their multi-million dollar agitprop.

After citing U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres' claim that "the era of global boiling has arrived," the report states, "We are living through a crisis that touches every aspect of our lives, and therefore has a place in every contemporary story. Today, films set in the present or near future that do not include climate change can be considered what they are: fantasy."

The activists — English associate professor Matthew Schneider-Mayerson and Good Energy consultants — likened their "Climate Reality Check" assessment to the Bechdel test, which is alternatively used to determine whether a work of fiction contains at least two female characters discussing something other than a man.

Instead of determining whether movies have a satisfactory number of female characters dialogically divorced from the other half of the species — an assessment likely more difficult in GLAAD-conforming films — the climate assessment asks whether, in a given story, climate change exists and a character knows it.

The activists made clear in a separate document that satisfaction of both pieces of this assessment could help advance climate alarmists' agenda.

"Studies show that viewers who see climate change included in films are more likely to prioritize it as an issue that demands attention and action in real life," wrote the activists. "A character talking about climate change can help model conversations about it in real life, and simple conversations about climate change can be remarkably influential."

'Climate change was present in twice as many films released during the second half of the decade we examined (2018 to 2022) compared to the first half (2013 to 2017).'

The activists treated themselves to the study of 250 of the most popular movies released between 2013 and 2022, ignoring high fantasy, science fiction films not set on earth, films set before 2006, and films set in the distant future.

According to the report, only 9.6% of the 250 films "passed."

"Climate change existed in the story world of only 12.8% of all films (passing part one of the test)," said the report. "Climate change was mentioned in two or more scenes in only 3.6% of all films."

While countless filmmakers apparently failed climate alarmists by failing to factor the weather into their writing sessions, the report indicated that conformity has nevertheless been on the rise.

"Climate change was present in twice as many films released during the second half of the decade we examined (2018 to 2022) compared to the first half (2013 to 2017)," said the report. "At this inflection point in the crisis, there is an unprecedented opportunity for Hollywood to help us navigate what it means to be human in the age of climate change, by creating authentic stories that reflect the reality we're all living in."

The activists apparently believe those intended to entertain have an obligation to inform and remind audiences about the supposed "gravity and urgency" of climate change.

Time will tell whether filmmakers will be confronted with yet another index and set of awards criteria aimed at facilitating ideological alignment.

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

Scientist who contributed to UN climate report touts global virus as final solution for curbing emissions



Bill McGuire, a professor emeritus of earth sciences at University College London and co-director of the New Weather Institute, has long been a climate alarmist. McGuire, whose specialty appears to be volcanoes, contributed to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2012 report; scaremongered about the weather on numerous BBC Radio 4 series; wrote a book 16 years ago entitled "Seven Years to Save the Planet"; and now criticizes affordable energy in the pages of the Guardian.

In March, McGuire recommended that Britons "green our towns and cities"; "replac[e] tarmac and concrete with more permeable materials"; "insulate, insulate, insulate"; and paint buildings white. On Friday, the volcanist went farther, recommending against laughing off climate alarmists' prophesies.

It appears McGuire understands his proposals to be foolhardy — that more is needed than white paint and stoicism to save the world from imagined future harms.

Culling the herd

McGuire noted Saturday in since-deleted tweet, "If I am brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to, to avoid catastrophic #climate breakdown, is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate."

McGuire's "realistic" solution sounds like the yet-to-be-released COVID-19 sequel that fellow alarmists, such as Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, have warned about in recent months.

At a World Economic Forum event in January, Ghebreyesus discussed Disease X and said, "Anything happening is a matter of when, not if."

The WEF suggested that "Disease X" could "result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic," reported Newsweek.

McGuire appeared to have an idea of what virus might do the trick, having linked in his "culling" tweet to a Saturday article in the Guardian about the H5N1 strain of influenza, commonly referred to as the bird flu.

The thrust of the linked article was that the bird flu being examined by British scientists might ultimately leap into human beings.

Virologist Paul Digard of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh is quoted in the artlce as saying, "Now that it seems to be fairly widespread in the cow population in the U.S., that’s a much more direct route where it could transmit to people and gain the adaptations it needs to go pandemic."

The article noted further as if to reassure, "If H5N1 did start spreading among people, the good news is that the world has plenty of recent experience when it comes to rolling out large-scale vaccination programmes. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are two candidate vaccines against a related strain of flu viruses that could be shipped within weeks, if necessary."

Backpedaling

McGuire's suggestion — that the "only realistic way" to get down emissions to desirable levels would be the deaths of millions if not billions of human beings — was not well received. He evidently decided that the way forwad would be to accuse his critics of illiteracy and a collective failure of comprehension.

"I SAID 'THE ONLY WAY I SEE EMISSIONS FALLING AS FAST AS THEY NEED TO,'" McGuire wrote in a subsequent tweet.

"SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN'T READ. I SAID 'THE ONLY WAY I SEE EMISSIONS FALLING AS FAST AS THEY NEED TO...' I DID NOT SAY 'WE NEED A PANDEMIC,'" wrote McGuire. "FFS DON'T READ THINGS INTO A STATEMENT THAT AREN'T THERE[.] I COULD HAVE SAD SOCIETY-BUSTING ASTEROID IMPACT INSTEAD OF PANDEMIC."

HE ONLY SAID THE HUMAN POPULATION NEEDS CULLING WHAT'S THE PROBLEM!?
— (@)

McGuire's first all-caps response to his critics did not go over well, so he tried again hours later, writing, "RIGHT, I AM DELETING THE INITIAL TWEET NOW. NOT BECAUSE I REGRET IT, BUT BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE HAVE MISTAKENLY, OR INTENTIONALLY, TAKE IT THE WRONG WAY."

The Virginia Project, a Republican political action committee among the many groups and individuals that blasted McGuire, wrote, "The world understood exactly what you meant, which is that in order to meet the goals of 'climate change' fanatics, a mass extermination of humanity on a global scale is necessary. That is the logical conclusion of 'climate change' advocacy. You just got caught admitting it."

The world understood exactly what you meant, which is that in order to meet the goals of "climate change" fanatics, a mass extermination of humanity on a global scale is necessary.\n\nThat is the logical conclusion of "climate change" advocacy. You just got caught admitting it.
— (@)

Multitudes of other users on X suggested likewise, prompting McGuire to suggest that by a pandemic-driven "culling," he actually meant a drop in economic productivity — the kind that in recent years corresponding with millions of people dying worldwide.

Reworded\n\nEmissions have only fallen at times of major economic shock, due to pandemic or otherwise\n\nA much bigger one is the only way emissions will fall by at least 50% in 66 months - needed to have any chance of dodging dangerous, all pervasive, #climate breakdown
— (@)

McGuire added in a Sunday tweet, "Would love to hear how emissions can be cut by at east 50% in the next 66 months (by 2030) without a major socio-economic shock that slashes economic activity[.] This MUST happen to have any chance of sidestepping dangerous, all-pervasive, climate breakdown."

— (@)

While McGuire appears to have said the quiet part out loud, he is hardly the only Britsh-based climate alarmist to publicly showcase his hostility toward human life in recent months.

Blaze News previously reported that Donnachadh McCarthy, a failed politician involved in Just Stop Oil and one of the leading figures of Extinction Rebellion, went on British television earlier this year to suggest that "there is a moral issue" with having too many children and that families should be limited to one child.

Late last year, scientists at the U.K. Center for Ecology and Hydrology raised the alarm that human breathing is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, urging "caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible."

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

Biden White House considering declaration of a 'national climate emergency' in order to grant itself special powers



The Biden White House is once again entertaining the possibility of conferring itself unprecedented powers to hobble American energy producers and win over leftists, all in the name of changing weather patterns.

Forbes Media chairman Steve Forbes characterized the proposed declaration as a "cowardly way to try to win this election."

Emergency powers then and now

The National Emergencies Act enables the president to activate special powers during a crisis. Since the law went into effect in 1976, it has been invoked scores of times.

When former President Donald Trump was in office, the Brennan Center for Justice, a leftist public policy institute, raised the alarm about the "vast array of obscure presidential powers" the NEA affords presidents in the face of a supposed emergency.

The Brennan Center noted that the emergency powers "cover almost every imaginable subject area, including the military, land use, public health, trade, federal pay schedules, agriculture, transportation, communications, and criminal law."

One statute unlocked following an NEA declaration would enable the president to "suspend a law that prohibits the testing of chemical and biological weapons on unwitting human subjects." Another would allow the president to commandeer radio stations.

Elizabeth Goitein, senior director and expert on presidential emergency powers at the Brennan Center, noted in the Atlantic that "the president is free to use any of them; the National Emergencies Act doesn't require that the powers invoked relate to the nature of the emergency. Even if the crisis at hand is, say, a nationwide crop blight, the president may activate the law that allows the secretary of transportation to requisition any privately owned vessel at sea."

The New York Times noted in 2019 that when it comes to an NEA declaration, it likely doesn't matter if "there is no true emergency" and that as a "matter of legal procedure, facts may be irrelevant."

While leftists, future Biden boosters, and Fox News hosts complained when Trump declared a national emergency to curb illegal immigration and secure the border, some appear less resistant now to an emergency declaration that affords fellow travelers more power.

Fake crisis, real power

In 2022, Biden faced significant pressure from Democratic lawmakers and other radicals to declare a national climate emergency as a means to unilaterally kill federal oil drilling and ramp up so-called clean energy projects.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in July 2022, "The climate emergency is not going to happen tomorrow, but we still have it on the table."

The option is evidently still on the table.

Citing people "familiar with the matter," Bloomberg reported last week that White House officials have renewed discussions about declaring a national climate emergency.

Biden's top advisers would be able to cut back exports of American crude oil just as Iran's oil exports hit a 6-year high and altogether throttle the supply of oil and gas; limit the movement of trains and ships; kill offshore drilling; limit Americans' greenhouse gas emissions; and more.

The Times previously indicated that the regime could also compel domestic industries to produce more renewable energy and transportation technologies and free up taxpayer funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to fritter away on supposedly green causes.

Advisers apparently figure the unilateral measure would resonate with "climate-minded voters."

Wrecking the economy

Steve Forbes told Fox Business' "The Evening Edit" Thursday that "you're going to pay for it with an even more troubled economy."

The declaration would "give him the power to stop drilling offshore, stop export of crude, ... delay pipelines and the like — just throttle the whole fossil fuel industry even more than they're doing," said Forbes. "What that only does is wreck the economy. It means higher energy prices."

"Just look at Europe. Germany has two to three times the electricity costs times the electricity costs of the U.S. because of the kind of stuff the Biden administration is doing now. They've learned a hard lesson," continued Forbes. "This administration's throwing it all away, all sensible policies away, as a cheap way, a cowardly way to try to win this election."

Forbes appeared somewhat optimistic, suggesting that most young people "will see through it" and understand the declaration would do them harm as well.

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

New Jersey pushes back on NYC's $15 congestion toll: 'You are not eliminating pollution; you are just displacing it'



New Jersey presented oral arguments on Wednesday in its lawsuit against New York over its $15-per-day congestion toll for Manhattan commuters. The complaint argues that the plan will place an economic strain on New Jersey residents and fail to reduce pollution, WABC-TV reported.

According to the lawsuit, the Federal Highway Administration approved New York City's toll but "failed to adequately consider the environment impacts" and "ignored the significant financial burden being placed on New Jerseyans and New Jersey's transportation system."

The complaint claims the federal government rushed through the approval without adequately reviewing the potential impacts.

Randy Mastro, a lawyer representing New Jersey in the case, called it "mind-boggling" that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority concluded the congestion toll would have "no significant impact" on traffic, the economy, or air quality in nearby areas, the New York Post reported. Mastro claimed that the FHWA's approval was "predetermined."

Mastro questioned whether the review "took a hard look into the adverse environmental impact" on the "entire region."

"They didn't consider New Jersey adequately," he stated.

As part of New York City's congestion toll plan, it set aside a $35 million mitigation commitment for the Bronx. However, it did not allocate any funds to New Jersey.

"There has been a mitigation commitment and in a dollar amount to the Bronx. Isn't that differentiated treatment, potentially rising to the level of arbitrariness?" Judge Leo Gordon asked MTA and FHWA lawyers.

Elizabeth Knauer, a lawyer representing the MTA, denied the claims of differentiated treatment.

New Jersey officials hope the legal action will force the federal government to conduct a more thorough evaluation. Governor Phil Murphy (D) contended that New York City's plan will only move pollution to surrounding areas.

"You are not eliminating pollution; you are just displacing it from Manhattan to New Jersey," Murphy stated Tuesday. "And you're charging our commuters an exorbitant fee on top of that."

Murphy has asserted that the city's plan is a "blatant cash-grab."

WABC reported that over 400,000 New Jersey residents commute into Manhattan every day. The new toll, slated to take effect in June, will require New Jersey commuters to pay millions of dollars to the MTA.

The lawsuit stated, "The end result is that New Jersey will bear much of the burden of this congestion pricing scheme — in terms of environmental, financial, and human impacts — but receive none of its benefits."

The MTA passed the controversial congestion toll in an 11-1 vote last week. Under the plan, most passenger vehicles will be charged $15 per day to drive on 60th Street and below. Small trucks and charter buses will be charged $24 per day, and large trucks and tour buses will be charged $36 per day. Motorcyclists will receive a $7.50 toll per day. The cost will drop by 75% in the evening. Commuters using taxis and black car services must pay an additional $1.25 fare, while Uber and Lyft passengers pay an extra $2.50.

New York City will use the state's existing E-ZPass system to collect most tolls. Drivers without a pass will be charged at a higher rate. For example, instead of $15 per day, passenger vehicles without an E-ZPass will be charged $22.50 per day.

Drivers making less than $50,000 per year could be eligible to receive a discount.

City officials anticipate the plan will reduce traffic by 17% and collect $1 billion annually. The funds gathered through the toll system will be used to improve public transportation.

Currently, the city is facing six lawsuits over the congestion toll plan.

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

Judge blocks Biden's emissions rule forcing states to set greenhouse gas reduction targets



A federal judge on Monday blocked the Biden administration's new emissions rule that would have required states to set greenhouse gas reduction targets to receive federal highway funding, the Daily Caller News Foundation reported.

What's the background?

The day before Thanksgiving, the Biden administration's Federal Highway Administration announced new regulations forcing state departments of transportation to "establish declining carbon dioxide" goals, Blaze News previously reported. The White House and the rule's supporters touted the measure as having "flexibility" because it did "not mandate how low targets must be."

According to the new rule, the targets and the progress made toward those targets would "be used to inform the future investment decisions of the Federal Government."

Critics argued that the Biden administration was using the rule to force Americans to switch to electric vehicles or public transportation.

Republican North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer released a statement in November accusing the "Biden bureaucracy" of "returning to their stale playbook of inventing illegal, punitive regulatory schemes."

"This final rule is contrary to congressional intent, usurps state authority by putting the federal government in the driver's seat, and is fundamentally unworkable in rural states like North Dakota," Cramer added.

Emissions rule faces legal challenge

A coalition of 21 states filed a lawsuit in December against the president, the United States Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration, claiming the agencies lacked the authority to regulate emissions or force states to follow the new measures, Courthouse News Service reported.

The plaintiff states in the case included Kentucky, South Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) argued that the rule would impact "the American economy" by requiring states to "make choices about projects, contracts, and regulations in order to meet the declining targets."

"Any mandated decline in on-road CO2 emissions will disproportionately affect states with more rural areas," Cameron wrote in the suit.

"States with fewer metropolitan areas have fewer options available to them to reduce CO2. Many of the ideas for how states can decrease GHG emissions — congestion pricing, road pricing, ramp metering, increased coordination with transit and non motorized improvements, paying fees to scrap low mileage heavy duty vehicles — are options more conducive to metropolitan areas, not rural ones," he continued. "Low population densities limit the efficacy of public transit and congestion pricing as options that would reduce vehicle miles traveled and, consequently, CO2 emissions."

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky Judge Benjamin Beaton, appointed by former President Trump, blocked the Biden administration's rule on Monday.

In his opinion, Beaton declared, "Even assuming Congress gave the Administrator authority to set environmental performance standards that embrace CO2, the Administrator exercised that authority in an arbitrary and capricious manner."

Beaton agreed that the rule lacked a statutory basis. However, he did not enjoin the regulation's enforcement or vacate it.

A spokesperson for the Federal Highway Administration told the DCNF, "The Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration remain committed to supporting the Biden-Harris Administration's climate goals of cutting carbon pollution in half by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050."

"We are reviewing the court's decision and determining next steps," the spokesperson added.

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

Vermont lawmakers want fossil fuel companies to pay for damages caused by weather events: 'Climate Superfund'



The Vermont Senate voted 21-5 on Friday to advance the Climate Superfund Act, which would force fossil fuel companies to pay into a fund covering weather event-related damages.

If passed into law, Senate Bill 259 would create a "Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program" to finance "climate change adaptive or resilience infrastructure projects" in Vermont.

"Under the Program, an entity or a successor in interest to an entity that was engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019 would be assessed a cost recovery demand for the entity's share of fossil fuel extraction or refinement contributing to greenhouse gas-related costs in Vermont. An entity would only be assessed a cost recovery demand if the Agency determined that the entity's products were responsible for more than one billion metric tons of covered greenhouse gas emissions," the bill read.

The fund would be used to "avoid, moderate, repair, or adapt to negative impacts caused by climate change," such as "implementing nature-based solutions and flood protections; upgrading stormwater drainage systems; making defensive upgrades to roads, bridges, railroads, and transit systems; preparing for and recovering from extreme weather events; undertaking preventive health care programs and providing medical care to treat illness or injury caused by the effects of climate change."

Additionally, the program would cover the costs of relocating sewage treatment plants, installing cooling systems in public and private buildings, upgrading that state's electrical grid, addressing toxic algae blooms, and managing the loss of topsoil.

The legislation is sponsored by Sens. Anne Watson (D), Dick Sears Jr. (D), Christopher Bray (D), and 17 other Democratic senators.

According to Sears, the legislation is "built on the long-standing principle that the polluter pays," Mountain Times reported.

"The damage that fossil fuels are causing in our communities continues to grow, with flooding in the last year alone resulting in massive costs to our state," Sears claimed.

Sen. Nader Hashim (D) told lawmakers on Friday, "In order to remedy the problems created by washed out roads, downed electrical wires, damaged crops and repeated flooding, the largest fossil fuel entities that have contributed to climate change should also contribute to fixing the problem that they caused."

"We can place the burden on Vermont taxpayers or we can keep our fingers crossed that the federal government will help us or we can have fossil fuel companies pay their fair share," Hashim said.

Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer would provide a report detailing the cost imposed on residents as a result of the "emission of greenhouse gases for the period that began on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2019." The report would assess the impact of fossil fuels on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, and flood preparedness.

The American Petroleum Institute stated that it opposes the bill and shared objections to the legislation in a letter to the state Senate last week, the Associated Press reported.

The group is concerned that the bill "retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large; and is preempted by federal law."

"Additionally, the bill does not provide potentially impacted parties with notice as to the magnitude of potential fees that can result from its passage," the API added.

Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.

ExxonMobil did not respond to the AP's 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!