Will Trump’s unconventional plan to stop the UN climate elites work?



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.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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.

Woke Colorado Dems target natural gas: 70% of homes face skyrocketing bills for unreliable electric heat



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

Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Image

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!

Climate Activists Are Pricing Coloradans Out Of Heating Their Homes

Colorado's aggressive emissions reductions risk higher energy bills and reduced affordability for working-class residents.

Climate hucksters wrong again: Study claiming climate change would make you poorer retracted over major flaws



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

Photo by ALEX KENT/AFP via Getty Images

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!

Fire breaks out at UN climate alarmist conference reportedly plagued by flood, toilet, 'inadequate air-conditioning' problems



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'

Photo by PABLO PORCIUNCULA/AFP via Getty Images

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!

Kamala Harris pushes to lower voting age to 16 — in honor of 'climate anxiety'



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.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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.

Report: Foreign Charities Have Pumped $2 Billion Into U.S.-Based Leftist Groups

'Congress needs to address these serious shortfalls in our laws to protect American interests and keep foreign influence out of our politics.'

Bill Gates does stunning about-face on climate 'doomsday' claims: 'This view is wrong'



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

Photo by BAY ISMOYO/AFP via Getty Images

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!

$2.2B green dream fizzles: Obama admin-backed solar plant to close after incinerating birds, missing energy targets



Ivanpah Solar Power Facility — which at one time was the largest solar plant in the world — is set to be shut down after it lasted only a third of its expected life span and reportedly killed tens of thousands of birds.

The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is located in San Bernardino County, California, and spans "approximately 3,471 acres of [Bureau of Land Management]-managed public land and incorporates three 459-foot tall power towers and 173,500 heliostat mirrors," according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.

'Ivanpah is yet another failed green energy boondoggle, much like Solyndra.'

The New York Post reported on Tuesday that the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is "set to close in 2026 after failing to efficiently generate solar energy."

NRG Energy, the Texas-based company that was an Ivanpah partner and the largest investor, said in a statement that the solar plant "has been surpassed by solar photovoltaics (PV) due to much lower capital and operating costs in producing clean energy."

NRG Energy estimated that the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility "will begin the process of closing its units in early 2026" after regulatory approval from the California Public Utility Commission.

NRG Energy stated, "Once deactivated, the units will be decommissioned, providing an opportunity for the site to potentially be repurposed for renewable PV energy production."

In January 2025, PG&E announced it would terminate the power purchase agreements with Ivanpah. PG&E determined that "ending the agreements at this time will save customers money compared to the cost of keeping them through 2039."

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy under President Barack Obama issued $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees for the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility. When the $2.2 billion Ivanpah Solar Power Facility began operating in 2014, it was the world’s largest solar plant and had an expected life span of 30 years.

Jenny Chase, a solar analyst at BloombergNEF, told Climate Depot that Ivanpah never produced more than 75% of its planned annual electricity output.

The Sierra Daily News reported, "Despite federal support and initial optimism about solar thermal technology’s potential for baseload power, Ivanpah never exceeded 75% of its planned electricity output and continues to depend on natural gas to operate."

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox News, "Ivanpah is yet another failed green energy boondoggle, much like Solyndra. Despite receiving $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees, it never lived up to its promises, producing less electricity than expected while still relying on natural gas to stay operational."

Steven Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute and former Trump EPA transition team member, warned about climate alarmism.

"Soon we will be looking at failures of larger magnitude than Green New Deal spending. No green project relying on taxpayer subsidies has ever made any economic or environmental sense," Milloy told Fox News. "It’s important that President Trump stop the taxpayer bleeding by ending what he accurately calls the Green New Scam."

RELATED: Liberals' Darling $2.2 Billion Solar Plant Suddenly Needs More of the One Thing You Would Never Expect

The U.S. Department of Energy explained how the solar power plant operates, “Ivanpah uses power tower solar thermal technology to generate power by creating high-temperature steam to drive a conventional steam turbine. Mirrors are used to concentrate sunlight and create steam, which is then converted to electricity.”

The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility incinerated tens of thousands of birds with the concentrated sunlight, the Association of Avian Veterinarians stated.

The solar power plant is "believed to be responsible for at least 6,000 bird deaths each year, as the birds can suffer severe burns or become incinerated if they fly too close to the 40-foot towers that concentrate sunlight from five square miles of solar panels."

The Association of Avian Veterinarians stated, "These numbers are likely an underestimation, as the sight of birds and insects rapidly immolated as they soar too close to the towers, which can reach temperatures of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, is so common that staff at the plant have a name for them — 'streamers.'"

The U.S. Department of the Interior stated that the "Ivanpah Project has resulted in avian mortality, and, consistent with approved plans, the BLM is actively working with the proponent, [the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service], and state agencies to address those impacts." However, the DOI did not provide an exact number of bird deaths.

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

Meet The British Billionaire Bankrolling Leftist Causes Across America

'While some states have already taken action to stop foreign money in ballot issue campaign, more action is needed to comprehensively ban all foreign influence.'