• The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California, once hailed as a green energy marvel, is shutting down after a decade of ecological harm and financial failure.
• Offshore wind projects, like Atlantic Shores in New Jersey, are collapsing despite massive subsidies, leaving ratepayers to foot the bill.
• Wind turbine blades, made of non-recyclable materials, are piling up in “wind graveyards,” raising concerns about long-term environmental impact.
• Bird deaths caused by solar and wind installations are drawing scrutiny, with estimates suggesting hundreds of thousands of avian fatalities annually.

The Ivanpah solar plant: a monument to failure

In the Mojave Desert, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System stands as a stark reminder of the unintended consequences of green energy projects. Built in 2014 with significant taxpayer backing, the plant was designed to harness solar power using thousands of mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto towers. Instead, it became infamous for its lethal impact on wildlife.

Federal wildlife officials described Ivanpah as a “mega-trap” for birds, with its intense light rays attracting insects and, in turn, birds that were incinerated mid-flight. Workers dubbed these tragic incidents “streamers,” referring to the smoke plumes left behind. At its peak, the plant was estimated to kill one bird every two minutes, totaling over 130,000 avian deaths annually.

Despite its ecological toll, Ivanpah struggled to meet energy production targets. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of its primary customers, announced in 2025 that it would no longer purchase power from the plant. Two of its three towers will shut down next year, with the third likely to follow.

“It might have functioned merely as the world’s most expensive backyard bug zapper,” quipped the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Offshore wind: a costly gamble

While solar projects face scrutiny, offshore wind energy is also encountering significant setbacks. In New Jersey, Shell recently abandoned its 50% stake in the Atlantic Shores wind farm, taking a $1 billion impairment rather than completing the project. The state’s Board of Public Utilities canceled its request for a wind-energy provider, leaving the 2,800-megawatt project without a customer.

The financial burden of such projects often falls on ratepayers. A review by Whitestrand Consulting found that Atlantic Shores would have charged three times the market price for electricity, raising rates by 11% for residents and up to 15% for businesses. Over the wind farm’s lifetime, this would have cost consumers an estimated $48 billion.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, a staunch advocate for renewable energy, has faced criticism for prioritizing green initiatives over economic reality. “A once-in-a-generation opportunity,” he called offshore wind. Critics argue it’s more accurately described as a “once-in-a-generation failure.”

The problem with wind turbines: broken blades and unrecyclable waste

Wind energy’s challenges extend beyond financial viability. In July 2024, a massive wind turbine blade shattered off the coast of Massachusetts, scattering debris across Nantucket Island’s beaches and prompting a federal investigation. The incident raised concerns about the safety and reliability of offshore wind farms, particularly as similar failures have occurred in the U.K. and Germany.

Compounding the issue is the non-recyclable nature of wind turbine blades, which are made from fiberglass or fiber-reinforced plastic. As these blades reach the end of their 20- to 25-year lifespans, they are piling up in “wind graveyards” across the U.S. In Sweetwater, Texas, a 30-acre site is filled with stacks of discarded blades, some as tall as basketball backboards.

“The Biden-Harris administration has not indicated what or who it expects to deal with the mountain of waste,” noted the Institute for Energy Research.

The environmental impact of renewable energy projects is not limited to waste. The American Bird Conservancy estimates that wind turbines kill approximately 538,000 birds annually in the U.S., with raptors like golden eagles and migratory songbirds particularly vulnerable. Solar installations like Ivanpah have added to this toll, with hundreds of thousands of birds killed over the past decade.

Despite billions in subsidies, many green energy projects remain unprofitable. From Ivanpah to Atlantic Shores, the pattern is clear: without government support, these ventures cannot compete in the energy market. The failures of Ivanpah, Atlantic Shores, and countless other green energy projects serve as a cautionary tale. While the push for renewable energy is driven by noble intentions, the reality is far more complex. Ecological harm, financial unsustainability, and logistical challenges have exposed the dark side of green energy.

Sources include:

• Mishtalk.com
• ReviewJournal.com
• WSJ.com

(Natural News)—For decades, the climate movement has leaned heavily on apocalyptic rhetoric, warning of impending doom if humanity fails to curb carbon emissions. But as public skepticism grows, elections swing toward climate realists, and economic realities bite, the messaging is undergoing a dramatic shift. The latest rebranding effort, as highlighted in an Associated Press report, attempts to reposition green energy not as a moral imperative to save the planet, but as an economic juggernaut promising jobs, prosperity and wealth creation.

This pivot, however, raises critical questions: Is this a genuine evolution of the green energy narrative, or merely a political sleight of hand designed to mask the sector’s reliance on government subsidies and regulatory mandates?

Desperate shift in messaging

The Associated Press article reveals a stark admission from climate leaders: the old “save the Earth” rhetoric isn’t cutting it anymore. UN Climate Executive Secretary Simon Stiell is quoted as saying that appealing to people’s “better angels” isn’t enough. Instead, green energy must now be framed in terms of self-interest.

“In the great horserace of life… always back self-interest… what’s in it for me,” Stiell recounted a friend telling him.

This shift is echoed by Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, who noted, “The messaging with this current administration and with the Republicans is shifting more to that energy piece, the economic piece, the jobs piece. I think you want to meet an audience where they are, what’s important to them, what’s going to drive the conversation forward.”

But this rebranding raises red flags. If green policies were truly the economic powerhouses their proponents claim, why do they require perpetual government subsidies and mandates? The reality is that wind, solar and electric vehicles (EVs) have been propped up by massive government spending, artificially low interest rates and regulatory favoritism.

False promise of green jobs

One of the most frequently repeated claims is that the transition to renewable energy will create millions of jobs. Former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis argues that conservatives should embrace renewables because they “create a lot of wealth, create a lot of jobs here in America.”

But what kind of jobs? And at what cost?

History has shown that government-funded green energy jobs are often temporary, low-paying and heavily subsidized. The collapse of Solyndra, a solar company that received over $500 million in federal funding, is a cautionary tale. More recently, Proterra, an electric bus manufacturer championed by the Biden administration, filed for bankruptcy despite extensive government backing.

Moreover, studies have shown that for every “green job” created, multiple traditional jobs are lost due to increased energy costs and regulatory burdens. Germany’s Energiewende policy, which aggressively pursued renewable energy, led to skyrocketing electricity prices and job losses in heavy industry. The U.S. risks following in those same footsteps.

Inflation and the cost of government-driven “green growth”

Green energy advocates love to talk about job creation, but they ignore the elephant in the room: the cost. Renewable energy projects require vast amounts of taxpayer funding, and as seen with massive spending packages like the Inflation Reduction Act, this kind of government largesse is inflationary.

The AP report notes that industry leaders are lobbying for continued “crucial tax incentives” to keep their projects afloat. In plain terms, that means they need government support to remain viable. If these industries were truly the economic powerhouses they claim to be, why do they require perpetual subsidies?

Government intervention in the energy sector distorts markets, leading to inefficiencies and higher costs for consumers. By contrast, the oil and gas industry, despite claims of being “subsidized,” largely operates on free-market principles and remains a global economic powerhouse.

Political mirage disguised as economic policy

The shift from “saving the planet” to “economic prosperity” isn’t a genuine change in green energy’s effectiveness — it’s a marketing strategy. Faced with rising skepticism, policy failures and electoral backlash, climate advocates are simply rebranding their agenda to make it more politically palatable.

Lisa Sachs, director of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, admits, “It’s not a perfect strategy from a climate or social perspective, as the private sector cannot on its own fully decarbonize the economy… But under this administration, it’s probably our best bet for progress.”

But no amount of messaging changes the fundamental flaws in green energy policy. A truly sustainable energy economy isn’t built on government subsidies, forced mandates and inflationary spending. It’s built on market-driven innovation, competition and affordability—principles that the green movement consistently ignores.

The green energy push remains what it always has been: a government-driven economic illusion, one that shifts costs onto taxpayers while delivering little in the way of reliable, affordable energy. The more voters see through this sleight of hand, the harder it will be for the climate lobby to keep up the illusion.

As Joanna Depledge, a climate historian at Cambridge University, aptly put it, “It’s time for a change… banging on about the catastrophic climate crisis is obviously doing no good at all.”

The green rebranding may be clever, but it’s far from convincing. Voters deserve better than a shell game disguised as economic policy.

Sources include:

• WattsUpWithThat.com
• MSN.com
• X.com

As climate alarmism continues to take over headlines in the mainstream media, methane emissions from cows have become the latest target of overzealous policymakers. Governments worldwide, from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, are imposing draconian regulations on farmers, forcing them to feed their livestock methane-reducing supplements like Bovaer. But is this war on methane justified? A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the climate impact of methane has been grossly exaggerated, and the policies targeting agriculture are based on shaky, if not outright pseudoscientific, foundations.

The “Methane and Climate” study, authored by physicists William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, has emerged as a critical rebuttal to the prevailing narrative. Published by the CO2 Coalition, the study meticulously dismantles the claim that methane from agriculture poses a significant threat to the planet. By analyzing the radiative properties of methane, the authors conclude that its warming potential is negligible compared to carbon dioxide (CO2). Despite this, climate activists and policymakers continue to push for costly and disruptive measures that threaten the livelihoods of farmers and the affordability of food for consumers.

The science behind methane’s limited impact

At the heart of the debate is the concept of radiative forcing, which measures how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. While methane is often labeled a “super pollutant,” Happer and van Wijngaarden’s research reveals that its warming effect is minimal. Methane molecules are far less abundant than CO2, and their warming potential is heavily “saturated” at higher concentrations. In other words, adding more methane to the atmosphere has a diminishing effect on global temperatures.

Research also highlights that methane concentrations are increasing at a rate 300 times slower than CO2, making its annual contribution to warming roughly one-tenth that of CO2. This stands in stark contrast to the apocalyptic rhetoric often used by climate activists, who portray methane as a dire threat to the planet.

Methane’s true sources are microbes, not fossil fuels

Adding to the growing skepticism of methane alarmism is a recent study published in PNAS, which found that the surge in atmospheric methane is primarily driven by microbial sources, not fossil fuels. Using isotopic analysis, researchers determined that wetlands, agriculture, and waste—not oil and gas production—are the main contributors to rising methane levels. This finding undermines the narrative that targeting fossil fuels is the key to reducing methane emissions.

Moreover, a study published in Nature Geoscience revealed that methane’s warming effect has been overstated. The research found that methane’s absorption of solar radiation actually reduces its overall warming impact by about 30 percent. This counterintuitive discovery challenges the simplistic view of methane as a major driver of climate change and raises questions about the validity of current climate models.

Climate alarmism is costing farmers

Despite the mounting evidence, governments are doubling down on policies that punish farmers. In the U.K., major supermarkets like Tesco and Aldi are already sourcing milk from cows fed Bovaer, a supplement that inhibits methane production. While some consumers have boycotted these products, many have no choice but to purchase them as alternatives become scarce.

The British government has gone a step further, mandating that all suitable cattle be given Bovaer by 2030. This decision has sparked widespread concern about the long-term health effects of consuming dairy products from medicated cows. Critics argue that the safety of Bovaer has not been sufficiently studied, and its potential risks to human health remain unknown.

The war on methane is a prime example of how climate alarmism is driving irrational and harmful policies. Farmers, who are essential to feeding the world, are being scapegoated for a problem that is largely exaggerated. The scientific evidence clearly shows that methane’s impact on global warming is minimal, and its sources are more natural than anthropogenic.

It is time for policymakers to reject the pseudoscience fueling the methane panic and embrace a more balanced approach to climate policy. Instead of punishing farmers, governments should focus on supporting agricultural innovation and ensuring food security. The public must demand greater transparency and rigor in climate science, and resist the fearmongering that has come to dominate the debate.

The methane myth is just one example of how climate alarmism is being used to advance a radical agenda. It is time to push back against these false narratives and restore common sense to the climate conversation.

Sources for this article include:

• WattsUpWithThat.com
• WattsUpWithThat.com
• ScienceNews.org

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under former President Barack Obama issued $1.6 billion in loan guarantees to finance the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, a green energy project that consists of three solar concentrating thermal power plants in California.

The project was led by Southern Company at its Kemper County energy facility in Mississippi. Despite significant federal investment, the initiative was terminated in 2017 after it became clear it would not achieve its goals. Instead of pioneering a new path for clean coal technology, the project resulted in substantial financial waste.

Energy expert Bernard Weinstein from Southern Methodist University criticized the project, saying, “This was a financial boondoggle from the start.” He pointed out that the technology was not commercially viable, and the enormous costs associated with it far outweighed any potential benefits.

Another critic, Marlo Lewis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, described the project as “a disaster” and highlighted the DOE’s poor judgment in continuing to fund such ventures. “The DOE should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy sector,” Lewis argued, suggesting that market-driven solutions would be more effective and efficient.

The project’s failure has reignited debates over government investment in technology that lacks proven commercial application. Critics argue that taxpayer money should not be risked on projects where success is uncertain, especially when alternative, more established technologies exist for reducing emissions.

Defenders of the DOE’s approach, however, maintain that innovation in energy technology inherently involves risk. They argue that without such investments, breakthroughs in cleaner energy could be stifled, potentially leaving the U.S. behind in global efforts to combat climate change.

The Kemper project’s failure adds to a growing list of costly government-backed energy projects that have not met expectations, raising questions about the effectiveness of such expenditures. As the U.S. continues to navigate its energy policy, especially in the context of climate change, the lessons from Kemper could influence future decisions on where and how public funds are allocated in energy innovation.

Article generated from legacy media reports.

(Natural News)—In a recent move to address the global climate crisis, the United Nations (UN) is advocating for the widespread adoption of digital identity systems.

The UN’s Development Program (UNDP) claims that these systems are crucial for monitoring energy consumption and promoting sustainable practices among citizens. However, this initiative has raised concerns among privacy advocates who fear potential government overreach.

The push for digital IDs is part of the UN’s broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) under Agenda 2030, which seeks to provide legal identity for all individuals, including birth registration, by 2030. The UNDP argues that digital identities would allow governments to track populations during environmental emergencies and implement targeted responses to mitigate crises effectively. (Related: United Nations renews push for globalized digital marking system to deal with ’emergencies.’)

According to a recent article by the UNDP titled “Why legal identity is crucial to tackling the climate crisis,” digital IDs would enable governments to collect data on citizens’ energy consumption. This information would then inspire “behavior change” and enhance sustainability measures. The organization claims that such actions can mitigate climate-related disasters.

The UNDP’s argument is not without precedent. In May 2023, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres supported digital IDs linked to financial systems, stating that they can improve the delivery of social protection coverage and help reach eligible beneficiaries more efficiently.

The UNDP’s push for digital IDs is part of a larger global initiative to combat so-called “climate change.” The organization argues that understanding citizens’ energy usage is critical in addressing climate-related challenges. By leveraging data collected via digital IDs, governments can implement policies to reduce carbon footprints and promote sustainable living.

However, this initiative has its roots in the UN’s broader goal of providing legal identity for all individuals by 2030. This includes birth registration and other forms of identification that link individuals to various government services. For example, in Ghana, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) has been piloting a program that registers biometric data of newborns, including fingerprints and caregiver voice data, which are then linked to government services like vaccination tracking.

Privacy concerns and potential risks

While the UNDP argues that digital IDs are essential for climate action, critics have raised concerns about potential government overreach and the risks to individual privacy. Opponents argue that such systems could enable intrusive monitoring and be used to enforce punitive measures, such as withholding access to financial resources for failing to comply with carbon tax regulations.

Privacy advocates warn that digital IDs could lead to widespread surveillance and diminish personal freedoms. The precedent of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown enforcement and vaccine passports has raised concerns about the potential for these systems to be misused.

The debate over digital IDs highlights the tension between the need for effective climate action and the preservation of individual privacy. As governments weigh the benefits of digital IDs against the risks, the future of this initiative remains uncertain.

The UN’s push for digital IDs as a tool to combat climate change reflects the organization’s commitment to addressing global environmental challenges. However, it also raises important questions about the balance between public good and individual privacy. As governments consider implementing these systems, it is crucial to address the concerns of privacy advocates and ensure that any measures taken are in line with democratic principles and respect for individual freedoms.

Visit Surveillance.news for stories related to global initiatives that aim to violate privacy. Watch the video below that talks more about the world’s reliance on digital IDs.

This video is from the Stand Up for Truth channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• Globalist organizations step up efforts to make digital IDs mandatory for people to participate in society by 2030.
• U.S. states are passing internet age verification laws as a cover to compel people into using digital IDs.
• Biden signs executive order expanding use of digital IDs in application process for public benefits.
• U.K. set to launch controversial DIGITAL ID system in 2025, sparking privacy concerns.
• Australian parliament passes digital ID law to enshrine the globalist control matrix down under.

Sources include:

• YourNews.com
• SlayNews.com
• UNDP.org
• Brighteon.com

In recent years, an increasing number of young people have been getting sterilized, the number of childless couples in the western world has reached an all-time high, and assisted suicide has been legalized in more nations.  Of course abortion continues to be a really big issue as well.  Since 1973, abortion has reduced the population of the globe by 1.5 billion.  But even though they have made so much “progress” on their agenda, they are not even close to satisfied.  During the WEF’s meetings in Davos, Switzerland this year, the fight against climate change is taking center stage.

The following comes from the official WEF website…

The World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos is bringing together leaders to forge innovative partnerships and dialogue to enable investments in climate and clean technologies – and work towards achieving equitable, secure and sustainable energy systems.

The week’s sessions come as US President Donald Trump has issued an executive order to pull the country out of the Paris Agreement. In many respects, the attitude has been one of ‘business as usual’ with participants describing a situation where climate activity is so entrenched that policy and action towards net zero and the shift to decarbonization will continue, regardless.

Did you catch the point of that second paragraph? They believe that their agenda has become “so entrenched” that not even President Trump can do anything about it.

On another page on the official WEF website, the fight against climate change and the fight against population growth are explicitly linked…

More people means more carbon footprints – more cars, waste and emissions, more houses and infrastructure to be constructed using the world’s limited resources, more mouths to be fed using more water and energy in food production. So, how many people is too many?

That is a rather chilling question.

Later on in that same article, we are told that if everyone in the world behaved like typical middle class Americans, the “carrying capacity” of our planet would only be somewhere around 2 billion people…

“An average middle-class American consumes 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and almost 250 times the subsistence level of clean water,” according to Professors Stephen Dovers and Colin Butler in their paper, Population and Environment: A Global Challenge.

“So if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, then the planet might have a carrying capacity of around 2 billion. However, if people only consumed what they actually needed, then the Earth could potentially support a much higher figure.”

There are 8 billion people living in our world today.

In order to get down to 2 billion people, approximately 6 billion of us would have to go.

Let that sink in for a moment.

That article also suggests that getting women into schools that teach their agenda is one of the best ways to control population growth…

As for controlling population growth, the education of women is one key factor. Research shows the higher level to which a woman is educated, the fewer children she is likely to have. In Ghana, for example, women who have been to high school, have a fertility rate of between two and three children, compared with six for those who have no education.

Of course “family planning” is another favorite population control tool that the globalists love to use.

Sadly, giant mountains of our tax dollars have been funding “family planning” programs all over the world, and most Americans don’t even realize that this has been happening.  For much more on the sick agenda of the globalists, please see my previous article entitled “47 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch”.

Thankfully, some world leaders are now taking a very strong stand against this agenda.

For example, Argentine President Javier Milei just delivered an absolutely blistering speech to the WEF…

In his speech to world leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Milei said, “it is our moral duty and our historical responsibility to dismantle the ideological edifice of sickly wokeism.”

Milei denounced the “sinister agenda of wokeism” and the “mental virus of woke ideology” as the “great epidemic of our time that must be cured” and “the cancer that we need to get rid of.” He elaborated on what he viewed as the harmful impacts of “woke ideology,” specifically the “bloody and murderous abortion agenda” that he described as an outgrowth of a faulty premise “that overpopulation will destroy the earth and that we must therefore implement some form of population control” as well as “the LGBT agenda.”

Wow. I have never heard a world leader put it so bluntly.

Donald Trump had an opportunity to speak in Davos as well, and he specifically addressed how his administration will be turning away from the environmental policies of the globalists.  The following comes from the official White House transcript of his remarks…

I terminated the ridiculous and incredibly wasteful Green New Deal — I call it the “Green New Scam”; withdrew from the one-sided Paris Climate Accord; and ended the insane and costly electric vehicle mandate. We’re going to let people buy the car they want to buy.

I declared a national em- — energy emergency — and it’s so important — national energy emergency to unlock the liquid gold under our feet and pave the way for rapid approvals of new energy infrastructure. The United States has the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we’re going to use it.

Not only will this reduce the cost of virtually all goods and services, it will make the United States a manufacturing superpower and the world capital of artificial intelligence and crypto.

My administration has also begun the largest deregulation campaign in history, far exceeding even the record-setting efforts of my last term.

Every human life is incredibly valuable.

If you do not understand why this is true, please get my new book entitled “Why” and read it from cover to cover.  There is a reason it is the highest rated book that I have ever written.

You are not here be accident. God put you at this specific moment in human history for a reason.

But you are not the only one that is unique.  Ultimately, God made each one of us unique in our own special way.

When we choose to take a life, we are destroying someone that God uniquely created.

Being pro-life is to be pro-God.  Being anti-life is to be anti-God.

Unfortunately, much of the global population has bought into the anti-life agenda of the global elite.  Let us do our best to try to wake them up while there is still an opportunity to do so.

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

(Natural News)—Step foot into any school, public or private, at any level, including elementary, middle, or high school, and open a science book and what do you find? Fake science. There are gobs of lessons, lesson plans, supplementary materials, projects, experiments, illustrations and videos that support the unproven (conspiracy) theory of global warming. Children and teens alike have brains like sponges, that are absorbing all of this and wondering how they can write a report, create a project, do their own presentation, and contribute on the local, regional, and global scale to a cause that most likely doesn’t even change anything. What a shame.

Climate change is just a theory, but every school in America has curriculum now that states it as a solid, evidence-based fact of the world

It’s just a theory, this whole “climate change” speculation, that used to be called “global warming,” until all the real temperature data was revealed, showing we are actually in a very slow cooling phase for the next several millennia. There is no, and has never been any, real science proving “global warming” or “climate change” to be true. It’s just a theory, more like a conspiracy theory, purported and propagated mostly by the richest elites in the world who fly around on their private jets and ride on their enormous yachts preaching to the rest of the world about conserving energy and going “green.”

Raging inferno-style fires and devastating regional floods around the nation are being whipped up and fueled by weather weapons and energy weapon technology that the U.S. government and military have secured patents for, in case you wanted to look it up. The glaciers are not shrinking, in fact, they are getting much bigger. The polar bears are not becoming extinct. The shores of America are not being swallowed up by “rising water levels.”

The entire global warming hoax had to have its name restructured to “climate change” when truth news exposed the fake temperature charts and the cherry-picked heat data that fit the narrative of the biggest Ponzi scheme ever invented and perpetuated. The richest elite on the planet fly around the world on their fuel-burning private jets and cruise around the globe on their gas-guzzling yachts while preaching to America’s youth about “going green” to save humanity and the earth from bursting into flames in the next ten years.

Donald J. Trump is finally in the driver’s seat again, and he plans to expunge all this nonsense about climate change from the economy, the school curriculum, and the globalist stages of stooges who make a fortune from the fake science scheme. Get this garbage out of the schoolbooks. Fake science has INFESTED school curriculum and it’s got to go. End the insanity. Science is never “settled.” Teach the children to question everything, including this fake global warming lie. It’s climate alarmism led by the climate cult.

Check out ClimateAlarmism.news for updates on psychotic billionaires spending big chunks of their money to adulterate the meat and dairy food supply while decreasing the population by a few billion.

Sources for this article include:

• NaturalNews.com
• BezoEarthFund.org

Under this new mandate, restaurants using char broilers would need to drastically reduce the smoky particulate matter they emit, or they might face closure. This proposal comes as part of broader efforts to improve air quality in New York City, focusing on reducing pollutants from sources like restaurant exhaust systems.

Restaurateurs are voicing their frustrations, with some like an unnamed restaurant owner who has been in the business for nearly 75 years, calling the rule “absolutely ridiculous.” He emphasized that the government should focus on more pressing quality of life issues rather than “messing with my burgers.”

This sentiment seems widespread among those affected by the regulation, who argue that the rule could fundamentally alter or even end their traditional cooking methods.

Exclusive: NYC restaurants burning up over new 'char broil' rule that would force them to cut emissions by 75% https://t.co/mjl3nwdiuW pic.twitter.com/iJOABr8Pjf

— New York Post (@nypost) January 12, 2025

The backlash is not just verbal; social media has been abuzz with posts from various users and restaurant advocates decrying the regulation. One user on X highlighted the absurdity of the proposed rule, while another expressed frustration over what they perceive as overreach by environmental regulators. These posts reflect a broader sentiment of resistance against what many see as an impractical mandate in the culinary world of NYC.

However, supporters of the rule argue that reducing emissions from char broilers is crucial for public health, especially in densely populated urban areas like New York City. They contend that the environmental benefits, including reduced health risks from air pollution, outweigh the costs to individual businesses, suggesting that restaurants adapt by using alternative, less polluting cooking methods or upgrading their existing equipment to meet the new standards.

The debate continues with no clear resolution in sight. Restaurant owners are left pondering the feasibility of compliance, while environmental groups push for immediate action on air quality. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection has yet to provide detailed guidance on how restaurants can achieve the required emissions reduction, leaving many in the industry in limbo.

STOP THE INSANITY!!! NYC restaurants flip out over new ‘char broil’ rule that would force them to cut emissions by 75%https://t.co/vVsTTaSc3N

— Triggering Liberal Tears (@nick9218) January 12, 2025

As this issue unfolds, it will be pivotal to see how the city navigates between supporting its vibrant food scene and enforcing environmental regulations. The outcome could set a precedent for urban dining and environmental policy not just in NYC but in cities worldwide grappling with similar issues.

Article generated from legacy media reports.

Unfortunately, many policy makers have bought into an extreme regulatory agenda driven by ideology that does not make sense scientifically or economically, that is harming both our economy and our military.

This agenda was on display at the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan from November 11 to 22 of last year. The premise for the conference, and such agreements as the Paris Accord, is that man-made climate change poises an existential threat to human existence. Further it is claimed that even now climate change is wreaking havoc around the world and that regulations, mandates and new technology will slow down and even reverse it.

Those pushing these beliefs also claim that it is the duty of more developed countries to transfer 100’s of billions, even trillions of dollars to developing countries so that they can continue developing using so-called green technology vs. dirty old legacy technology.

Here in the United States, climate-change driven polities and mandates are being rolled out on the premise/claim that that climate change is even now disproportionately affecting the poor and disadvantaged. They also claim that man-caused climate change is negatively impacting GDP.

In other words, if you don’t support draconian climate-change driven policies and mandates you support a weaker economy and have a callous disregard for how climate change is hurting those occupying the lower socioeconomic strata.

These claims, believed by many in academia and the media establishment, have taken on religious overtones, and consequently there is little tolerance for opposing viewpoints in both academia and legacy media. Be that as it may, many scientists, engineers, and other knowledgeable, extremely bright people don’t believe the rhetoric and have provided convincing arguments debunking what they believe to be pseudoscience.

One such group of distinguished academicians is the Climate Intel group (Clintel). And one of the most distinguished members of this group is Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser, who in August of 2023 signed the Clintel Climate Declaration which declares that there is no climate emergency. As of today, 1600 plus scientists and experts have signed the declaration, with Nobel Prize winner Dr. Ivar Giaever being the first signee.

The declaration states that climate science has become politized and is lacking scientifically. It notes that climate change models are fully dependent on what go into them including hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. And that “to believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe [blind faith] what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.”

Suffice it to say, the repeated failures of these models leaves plenty of room for doubt in the popular narrative on climate change. And given that the regulations and mandates aren’t actually stopping or even slowing climate change, we must question the wisdom of implementing regulations and mandates that cripple our economy and our military, even as China’ economy and military continue to expand unhindered by such crippling mandates and regulations.

Still, for the last 15 years plus, the United States has led the world in reducing carbon emissions. The extent of this leadership can be found in the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, which shows that over the last 15 years, the U.S. has experienced the largest decline in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from energy, process emissions, methane and flaring. Indeed, as compared to 2013, the U.S. has been able to reduce carbon dioxide equivalents by 8.5 percent even as it has massively grown it economy through aggressive drilling for and using cleaner burning natural gas, including natural gas from fracking instead of coal. During this same period, China’s CO2 equivalents went up by 20 percent to make China by far and away the biggest emitter of green-house gases (GHGs).

China also leads the world in plastics pollution, and only India beats China when it comes to the sulfur dioxide emissions (SO2) responsible for acid rain.

Of note, when it comes to SO2 emissions the United States produces about one-sixth that of China.

Hence, as of today if the climate change narrative is correct, it is China that by far and away that is doing the most damage and it the United States that has done the most to combat it.

Consequently, with the United States already leading the developed world in reducing GHGs and with huge chunks of the world producing GHGs and other pollutants largely unabated, it hardly makes sense for the United States to voluntarily cripple its economy and military even as China and other potential adversaries pay lip service to the climate change narrative.

A BlackRock spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times that the company has decided to withdraw from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM), a coalition comprised of over 325 signatories managing more than $57.5 trillion, all committed to the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by aligning investment strategies with this objective.

Membership in the climate pact did not affect the way BlackRock managed client portfolios, according to the spokesperson, but it did lead to confusion about the company’s practices and subjected it to legal inquiries from public officials. Despite the NZAM exit, BlackRock remains committed to sustainable investing.

Several major Wall Street banks have recently exited a similar climate-focused organization for lenders called the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which similarly pushes a net-zero goal.

Republicans, particularly from energy-producing states, have criticized the participation of banks and asset managers in net-zero coalitions as part of a progressive agenda and have accused them of antitrust violations.

In November, Texas and 10 other Republican-led states sued BlackRock and rivals, alleging that they disrupted coal production and raised energy prices.

“Texas will not tolerate the illegal weaponization of the financial industry in service of a destructive, politicized ‘environmental’ agenda. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street formed a cartel to rig the coal market, artificially reduce the energy supply, and raise prices,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “This is a stunning violation of State and federal law.”

BlackRock has rejected the allegations, stating that the lawsuit undermines investments in essential companies that consumers depend on.

In a 2024 letter to shareholders, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said that the company has “never supported divesting from traditional energy firms” and that it has over $300 billion invested in traditional energy firms on behalf of its clients.

“If they want to invest in hydrocarbons, we give them every opportunity to do it–the same way we invest roughly $138 billion in energy transition strategies for our clients,” Fink wrote. “That’s part of being an asset manager. We follow our clients’ mandates.”

In December, a Republican-controlled congressional committee requested information from BlackRock and dozens of other asset managers regarding their involvement with NZAM.

“The over 60 asset managers with membership in NZAM must answer for their involvement in prioritizing woke investments over their own fiduciary duties,” the House Judiciary Committee said in a statement, while letters sent to various asset managers demanded the preservation of records that may be associated with “NZAM’s collusive activity that would inform potential legislative reforms.”

After a number of financial institutions left the climate pact for lenders, the Texas attorney general praised them for the exit in a Jan. 7 statement. Paxton alleged that the climate pact aims to undermine the vital oil and gas industries and that membership in the alliance could potentially bar banks from entering into contracts with Texas government entities.