Faced with the general craziness stemming from voters’ decisions to nominate far-left radical DSA candidates to represent the party in congressional races in half a dozen states now, Democrats are working overtime to mask their party’s true agenda from the general public. The fear that the party’s increasing radicalism will alienate independent voters in the November mid-term elections has party officials worried it could cost them the chance to win majorities in the House and/or the Senate.
The issues of prominent concern are obvious: Abolishing prisons without a viable alternative; de-funding police and ICE simultaneously; reopening the borders a la the Biden autopen presidency; Medicare for all; packing the supreme court; ending the filibuster; abolishing the electoral college and even the U.S. Senate. Taken together it’s an agenda so nutty that it has Axios speculating whether even Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just too “moderate” now to sign onto it all.
If you saw that coming as 2026 dawned, you should quit your day job and play the betting markets.
Now, we find out that AOC’s original pet issue during her first few months in congress — the climate change narrative — is among the agenda items the Democrat party’s leaders want candidates to mask. Readers may remember that, in just her 2nd month of serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ocasio-Cortez teamed with leftwing Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey to sponsor the massive, $90 trillion reorganization of the U.S. economy they called the Green New Deal.
It was a monstrosity of Soviet-style command-and-control regulation and central government planning which would relegate all Americans to give up their cars, abandon vacation travel, eliminate personal airline usage, build a fantasy network of high-speed rail lines, and relegate the masses to living tiny, immobile lives in 15-minute cities while their central government elites lived the high life as if nothing had changed.
The proposed legislation went nowhere, of course, being laughed out of the room by Republicans and independents alike, but the seed had been planted. Joe Biden was installed into the White House in January 2021 and, aided by a massive propaganda campaign free of charge in the legacy media, embarked on a set of energy and climate policies designed to at least get the camel’s nose under the tent to stake the ground for a form of Green New Deal to come.
But my, what a difference five years makes. Democrat candidates are being advised now to avoid the climate change topic at all costs in this year’s midterms. Sen. Markey himself barely mentions the topic in his primary campaign against Seth Moulton, preferring to focus on other more mainstream topics.
“Six years ago, Green New Deal was every phrase out of Ed Markey’s mouth every chance he got. That is not the case now,” Mary Anne Marsh, a veteran Democratic strategist in Massachusetts, told PBS. Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director at the far-left climate alarm group the Sunrise Movement, says in the same piece that, “It has felt less like people care less about climate and more like people are increasingly freaked out about other issues.”
That makes sense, given that freaking out about all manner of things is a core competency of leftwing activists and politicians. But the party’s vow of omerta about climate change doesn’t sit well with every Democrat. One dissenter, Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, believes the party’s tactic of hiding its climate agenda amounts to a strategic blunder.
“Climate change has moved from the science department into the economics department,” he said. “It’s now battering people’s home insurance, property values, pocketbook concerns. So I think it’s a very powerful argument.”
The problem, of course, is that climate change does not poll well — it never has. It always ranks at or near the bottom of issues voters most care about in poll after poll. Politicians interested in winning elections naturally tend to want to focus on issues people do care about. In this year’s Democrat party primaries, the voters heavily tilt towards leftwingers who are freaking out about anything President Donald Trump is in favor of.
For Democrats, masking their real agenda on climate change makes sense until the election season ends. After that, all bets will be off.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine just released a major report on extreme event attribution science, the increasingly trendy climate alarmism field that tries to pin specific hurricanes, heat waves, or floods on human-caused climate change and, more importantly, on the oil and gas companies activists love to sue.
The headlines from the usual media suspects will predictably claim the science has “advanced.” What they won’t emphasize is the report’s own admission that the field still faces “significant challenges,” or the roster of climate litigation partisans who helped shape it.
President Donald Trump immediately questioned the report’s legitimacy, and the reason why is pretty simple: The report was heavily influenced by academics and activists with apparent conflicts of interest.
One example is Michael Burger of Columbia’s Sabin Center, who also serves as of counsel to the Sher Edling firm in Honolulu’s climate lawfare effort targeting the oil and gas industry. In that role, Burger could benefit if courts start accepting these studies as proof of liability. The report’s acknowledgments thank him anyway while making no meaningful disclosure of his conflicts.
Oh.
But wait, there are more! Delta Merner of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who runs their Climate Accountability Campaign and Science Hub for — guess what? — Climate Litigation, served on the committee itself into early 2025.
Jessica Wentz, another Sabin Center figure previously tied to a now-rescinded Federal Judicial Center climate chapter written by litigation advocates, shows up in the acknowledgments.
So does Michael Wehner, linked to the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which trains judges on these very issues. One of the report’s own authors, Joyce Kimutai, has publicly argued that the “bar is too high” for using attribution in court and that the burden of proof should flip to the defendants. That’s not science talking. That’s advocacy.
The National Academies’ own conflict-of-interest policy demands advice “free from undue influence” from interested parties. This lineup makes a mockery of that standard.
Yet even with all that help from the climate lawfare complex, the NAS could not bring itself to declare victory for attribution science. Committee chair James Hurrell noted that the field “still faces challenges, and addressing them is necessary to fully realize the value of attribution science.”
Confidence in results “varies significantly across different types of extremes.” In other words, the science remains uneven, incomplete, and not ready to play the primetime role in the courtroom sought by activists for years.
That quest dates back at least to the 2012 Rockefeller-funded La Jolla conference, where participants openly discussed using attribution to link emissions to specific harms for litigation purposes.
Even then, they admitted “many challenges” in getting the science right. By 2021, researchers including Friederike Otto were conceding that plaintiffs were failing to overcome causation hurdles in court because the evidence simply didn’t connect individual emitters to specific losses. Five years later, after relentless pressure and Biden-era institutional capture, the NAS is still saying the same thing: significant challenges remain.
Attribution science was never pure science-based inquiry. It was purpose-built to support a coordinated campaign of lawsuits aimed at extracting settlements, driving up energy costs, and ultimately bankrupting or nationalizing parts of the fossil fuel industry.
Courts have mostly resisted so far because judges still require actual evidence of causation, not probabilistic storytelling disguised as settled science. The NAS report unintentionally underscores why those lawsuits keep stumbling.
Americans should pay attention. When activists capture scientific bodies, the product is not better science.
Instead, what we get for our taxpayer dollars are better press releases and stronger talking points for trial lawyers. The real-world energy system still runs on oil, natural gas, and coal because those fuels deliver affordable, reliable power.
Efforts to litigate them out of existence based on incomplete attribution models will inevitably produce the results that are impacting our pocketbooks in real time: higher energy costs, weakened reliability, all with zero impact on global temperatures.
The NAS had a chance to produce a clear-eyed assessment. Instead, it produced a document that both acknowledges the science’s limits and carries the fingerprints of the very people hoping to use it as a legal weapon.
That’s not how independent science works. It’s how lawfare works.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Every time you think the energy policies pushed by the Democratic Party can’t possibly get any crazier, they go and fool you again.
Politico’s E&E News published an article Friday with a headline that should scare the bejeebers out of anyone who hopes for sanity in energy policy: “Progressives look to recharge the Green New Deal for the AI era.”
The piece quotes Melat Kiros, the socialist who unseated longtime incumbent Democratic Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette in the party’s recent Colorado primary as saying, “The Green New Deal, frankly, is a floor now, not a ceiling, for what we need to actually be looking at doing.”
This, of course, parrots the classic mantra of every generation of new socialists, who, when presented with the reality that socialism fails disastrously everywhere it is tried, invariably claim that it just hasn’t been done the right way, and they know better.
But they never really do know better.
Let’s be clear: what any version of the Green New Deal introduced by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Democratic Massachusetts Sen Ed Markey in 2019 would kill the AI era. Why? Because it is a classically socialist program by its very nature. It is a program which would seize the means of production through the central government, invoke a gigantic array of top-down command-and-control regulatory structures and utterly destroy the spirit of human initiative and innovation that leads to human flourishing and prosperity.
All the various socialist candidates quoted in the E&E piece are supported by The Sunrise Movement, a far-left activist NGO funded mainly by leftwing billionaire interests like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Tides Foundation and the Soros-affiliated Open Society Policy Center. What a surprise – it’s like a who’s who of far leftwing astroturf protest funders who have been behind every U.S. protest movement since Occupy Wall Street.
The Green New Deal as proposed by AOC and Markey seven years ago involved ending discretionary air travel; heavily restricting all other travel; heavily restricting personal driving; de facto banning oil, natural gas, and coal; building a vast network of high-speed rail lines which would cost trillions of dollars and take a century or more to develop (assuming the economy didn’t enter a major depression in the meantime); and destroying power grid reliability by forcing mass adoption of wind and solar.
To this new generation of Sunrise-supported socialists, that array of destructive and frankly impossible options is now the “floor” for what really needs to be done. You just can’t make this stuff up.
“The Democrat Party – the socialists, the Marxists – have nominated some of the most radical candidates to ever run for office, and they’re running for Congress. The insurgent left is on the rise,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said after New York voters nominated three socialist candidates.
The speaker isn’t wrong; in fact, he’s a master of understatement. The insurgent left is not just on the rise, it is being funded by the same leftwing billionaire interests who funded the destruction of America’s coal industry, the anti-fracking movement and the effort to kill the shale revolution that has generated hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth and made the United States the world’s dominant energy powerhouse.
Any revitalization of the Green New Deal would be intentionally designed to destroy all of that and much more. Any effort to apply a renewed Green New Deal to the AI industry would be designed to destroy it, too. Because socialism at its base is never about building anything, but about destroying things, with human flourishing being its main target.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
As we celebrate America’s 250th birthday, one of the finest blessings our Founders gave our nation stands out with particular clarity: the system of free enterprise. That system did not merely enable liberty and prosperity in the abstract.
It unleashed the human ingenuity, risk-taking, and capital allocation that turned America into the world’s unrivaled energy superpower.
From the coal age that fueled the Industrial Revolution, through the oil age that powered the 20th century, to the LNG age we now dominate, American free enterprise has repeatedly delivered technological leadership and abundance. No central planner designed these revolutions.
Entrepreneurs, engineers, and investors did, operating in a system that rewards results above political connections.
Today that legacy is unmistakable. The United States leads the world by a wide margin in the production of both oil and natural gas. We have also become the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, shipping reliable energy to allies across Europe and Asia who once relied on less friendly suppliers.
While some critics like to call this an accident of geology, they’re wrong. America’s LNG dominance is the direct result of the shale revolution, advanced drilling techniques, and a policy environment that, when properly structured, lets markets work.
America once held a similar commanding position in nuclear power. We built the world’s first commercial reactor and led in reactor technology for decades. Then came the 1979 Three Mile Island incident. Irrational fears, amplified by media and activists, led to a bureaucratic paralysis in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which stalled new construction for two generations. Promising projects died in paperwork as existing plants faced endless regulatory hurdles. America fell behind while other nations pressed forward.
Today, that era is ending. The Trump administration is delivering a major push to revitalize America’s nuclear power industry. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have announced major project milestones in recent weeks, including new loan programs to support large-scale reactors and breakthroughs on advanced designs such as microreactors that have already achieved criticality.
These steps signal a return to regulatory sanity and a recognition that abundant, reliable, carbon-free baseload power is essential for both economic growth and national security.
Wind and solar have also established a robust presence on every major U.S. regional grid. These intermittent sources now deliver meaningful power to homes and businesses when the weather cooperates. American companies and workers have built real expertise and infrastructure in these sectors. Yet the United States remains far behind China in manufacturing scale and deployment speed, and subservient to the Chinese Communist Party for the raw materials that make them work.
As Secretary Wright posted on X this week, the massive Biden-era subsidies that distorted markets and enriched foreign supply chains begin phasing out this month. That transition will test the true competitiveness of these technologies without artificial support. Their future contribution will depend on genuine cost reductions and technological improvement, not ever-rising subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers.
America’s dominant position across fossil fuels, its returning strength in nuclear power, and its established role in renewables together form an unmatched energy portfolio. This abundance has been no small factor in making the United States the world’s dominant geopolitical power. Reliable, affordable energy underpins manufacturing resurgence, data-center growth, and an enduring military edge that deters adversaries. It keeps our economy the envy of the world, with lower energy costs than most competitors and the flexibility to adapt to new demands.
Most importantly, energy dominance sustains the God-endowed freedoms our Founders secured. Cheap, reliable power frees families from energy poverty. It powers the innovations that improve daily life. It supports the industries that create the jobs and wealth that let individuals and communities flourish according to their own lights rather than government dictates.
On this 250th anniversary, we should give thanks not only for the Declaration of Independence and the visionaries who created it, but for the practical system of ordered liberty that turned a resource-rich continent into the engine of global progress.
Free enterprise did not merely discover America’s energy wealth. It developed it, refined it, and continues to expand it. That is a blessing worth celebrating not just this weekend, but every day.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
I have to admit that I laughed out loud – almost spewing coffee on my keyboard – Friday morning when I read this headline from a competing platform’s energy-related newsletter: “SOLAR DOESN’T USE MUCH FARMLAND: Solar occupies less than 1% of farmland in the U.S., according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.”
To paraphrase from former President Bill Clinton’s grand jury testimony, that depends on what the meaning of “much” is. Curious about the subject, I decided to research the question, accessing a wealth of public information easily available to anyone, including those in the solar industry. The answer I found might surprise the folks at the Solar Energy Industries Association. Or maybe it wouldn’t, which might explain why they choose to couch the answer in such a misleading way.
The salient question: How many acres make up 1% of U.S. farmlands?
According to the USDA’s most recent data, the 2025 total land in farms is 873.95 million acres (down slightly from prior years). Earlier years were a bit higher (e.g., ~900 million in 2017), but the total has been gradually declining. One percent of 873.95 million acres = 8.74 million acres.
Farmland here generally refers to “land in farms” per USDA definitions (including cropland, pasture, woodland, etc., on farms). Figures can vary slightly by source or definition (e.g., cropland-only vs. all agricultural land), but the ~874 million acre range is the standard benchmark from official USDA reports.
Now, for some context. The King Ranch in South Texas is arguably the largest and most celebrated big farming and ranching operation in U.S. history. Established in 1854 by pioneering rancher Richard King, the ranch at its peak consisted of 1.2 million acres.
Thus, the solar power industry itself admits that its wind arrays currently occupy an area of fertile farmlands that is roughly 8 times the size of the biggest farming and ranching operation in United States history. That is a stunning number, yet the authors of that referenced newsletter characterize it as being “not much.”
Being a guy who grew up in a farming and ranching family, that sure seems like “much” to me. It also most likely seems like “much” to experts whose own studies find that placing solar arrays atop farmlands robs the land of crucial nutrients and renders it more vulnerable to erosion. Disturbingly, unless radical changes are quickly made, the industry plans to cover up many more King Ranch-sized swaths of fertile land in the coming years.
A 2024 report by the Institute for Energy Research finds that, despite these warnings by experts in the field, the vast majority of new solar projects are targeting farmland to house their industrial projects in the coming years. “The target for solar operations is increasingly in the Midwest, where government handouts to solar allow them to pay more to rent land than the farmers providing food for the nation,” the report says, adding, “Farmland preservation groups believe 83 percent of new solar installations will come from farm and ranch lands with half of these installations on the richest land for food and crops.”
Fortunately, the big federal subsidies which drove the recent huge solar expansion are scheduled to begin expiring in July. But with hundreds of new solar projects already in the queue, millions more acres of fertile farmlands will be removed from the food system in the years to come even as a fertilizer shortage threatens to disrupt global food supplies. All to create unreliable, unpredictable, intermittent electricity for a few hours a day that could be provided by an array of more reliable power sources which occupy a fraction of the land, none of which intentionally target farmlands as their homes.
It’s a completely irrational misallocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in capital brought to us directly by the Biden autopen presidency and its Orwellian Inflation Reduction Act. You could never make this stuff up if it weren’t already happening before your very eyes. Watch it and weep.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
