A quiet technical decision in climate science should trigger one of the most consequential policy corrections of this decade.
Deep within the bureaucratic machinery of global climate research sits an obscure modeling group called the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project. It is a foundational component of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project organized by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), which was established in 1980 under the joint sponsorship of the World Meteorological Organization and the International Council for Science.
WCRP coordinates Earth System Model simulations driven by alternative trajectories of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and land use changes. These simulations provide projections used by scientists, climate-impact researchers, and international entities like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to analyze risks of climate change. The projections feed into IPCC assessment reports, which are treated as the gold standard of climate analysis and shape nearly all academic research on the subject and eventually energy policy.
For years, the most alarming climate narratives leaned heavily on the RCP8.5 scenario and its successors, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0. Their fearmongering projections of extraordinary warming assume a high sensitivity of Earth’s climate system to greenhouse gases. Embracing these predictions of widespread catastrophe, researchers, policymakers, financial overseers, and others foisted onto the public all manner of burdens.
Scientist Roger Pielke Jr. examined what this means by comparing the new scenarios against previous benchmarks, saying: “The new framework has eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades … This is an absolutely huge development in climate science which will have lasting impacts across research and policy.”
In short, the latest projections of warming are significantly lower. Forecasts that drove many of the scariest headlines are no longer considered realistic enough to guide modeling for the next IPCC report. The “worst case” that powered a generation of alarmist narratives has been quietly retired by the community that once promoted it.
This is not an academic housekeeping exercise. The discarded scenarios are embedded in the machinery that shapes energy bills, job prospects, and the economic development of nations. Pielke points out that national climate impact reports in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the Netherlands have relied on RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 as central reference cases.
The financial sector went even further. The Network for Greening the Financial System, a club of more than 140 central banks and supervisors, built its “Hot House World” scenario on a risk profile calibrated to RCP8.5. This scenario has informed climate stress tests at the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Banque de France, and the U.S. Federal Reserve, influencing allocation of capital and the price of loans linked to fossil fuel projects.
For many developing countries, these documents—like IPCC’s assessment reports—are central to decisions on coal plants, pipelines, and other industrial development. When the underlying scenarios become “officially implausible,” the credibility of documents vanishes.
You might expect this news to dominate front pages and prime-time climate coverage. It has not. The narrative used to justify punitive energy policies ought to adjust. If it does not, you are witnessing a political agenda searching for new rationales.
We must completely dismantle the regulatory apparatus built on these bogus models. We cannot allow unelected banking cartels and extreme environmental groups to govern the global economy using discredited computer simulations.
This moment offers developing nations a rare opportunity to reclaim energy sovereignty. They can accelerate fossil-fuel development where it makes economic sense, integrate newer technologies where they prove competitive, and reject any framework that treats affordable energy as a luxury.
Climate deniers will be those who reject these scenario updates that upend their crisis evangelism. Their forecasts of doom are false and always have been.
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
For generations, Arizona’s wide-open land has supported ranchers, farmers and the communities that helped build our great state.
Then, the climate activists came along.
Armed with nothing more than junk science from climate “experts” like Al Gore and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they got busy imposing costly green energy mandates on states across the country—and Arizona’s political and corporate elites eagerly fell in line. Our state’s utilities committed themselves to achieving “Net Zero” emissions by 2050, a goal that will cost ratepayers billions of dollars while doing little to meaningfully impact the environment.
But higher utility bills are only part of the cost.
Not wanting to disappoint some of her largest campaign contributors, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs has been quick to bend the knee to the Green New Scam time and time again. Now, these decisions are not only hitting families in the wallet, but they are transforming our state’s beautiful countryside into an industrial playground for massive, foreign-backed solar and wind developments.
Under Hobbs, the Arizona State Land Department has increasingly operated like a business partner for the solar industry instead of a steward of Arizona’s public lands. The agency now maintains detailed maps identifying the “best” locations for solar development across the state, effectively helping direct industrial solar companies toward Arizona’s most desirable land.
But surely, they must be doing the same for other industries?
At the May 5 Higley Unified Governing Board meeting, the Board approved a lease agreement with AZ Aspire Academy to utilize a portion of Power Ranch Elementary.
I think it’s a good thing that the district is looking for ways to generate additional revenue from unused space. When enrollment is declining and budgets are getting tighter, we should absolutely be looking for creative ways to make better use of district assets.
But let’s be honest: leasing a portion of one building doesn’t solve the bigger problem.
Higley currently has more than 10,200 vacant seats sitting empty across our schools. Several campuses are operating at less than half of their physical capacity. Power Ranch is only about 32% utilized. Centennial is around 31%. Cortina, Chaparral, and Cooley Middle are all below 50%.
While we are making difficult budget and staffing adjustments because enrollment is declining, we have not had the same level of discussion about what it costs taxpayers to maintain thousands of unused seats.
Those numbers should prompt a serious conversation about how we plan for the future.
Every building costs money to operate whether it’s full or half empty. We still pay for utilities, maintenance, landscaping, repairs, insurance, security, and countless other expenses. The cost doesn’t disappear just because the students do.
At the same time, enrollment continues to decline.
For FY2027, Higley is projecting ADM of approximately 11,250 students, down from 11,695 in FY2026. As enrollment drops, so does funding. The district’s M&O budget limit is projected to decline from approximately $118.9 million to $111.5 million, a reduction of more than $7 million in a single year.
Because school funding is largely driven by student enrollment, staffing levels must eventually align with the number of students being served. The district has already reduced M&O-funded staffing from approximately 1,243 positions to about 1,203. While these reductions are difficult, they are a necessary response to declining enrollment and reduced revenue. The district’s maintained M&O reserve is projected to fall from approximately $17 million to about $13 million.
Yet despite making these necessary adjustments in staffing and operations, we continue carrying the costs associated with significant excess building capacity.
We also cannot forget that taxpayers are still paying approximately $3.5 million annually for the two middle schools. Those payments will continue for roughly the next 27 years. Whether a building is full or half empty, the debt payment remains. That makes it even more important that we have a long-term strategy for utilizing our facilities efficiently and aligning them with current enrollment realities.
This isn’t just happening in Higley. A recent report from the Common Sense Institute, Echoes in the Halls: Arizona School Districts’ Growing Problem with Empty Buildings and Empty Buses, highlighted a growing statewide challenge. School districts across Arizona built facilities during years of rapid growth and are now struggling with declining enrollment while taxpayers continue paying to maintain underutilized schools.
The report should serve as a wake-up call.
Too often, whenever school funding is discussed, the conversation immediately turns to needing more money. Before asking taxpayers for more, we should make sure we are using existing resources as efficiently as possible.
As board members, our responsibility is not simply to spend money. Our responsibility is to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used wisely and producing the best possible outcomes for students.
That means asking difficult questions:
What is the district’s long-term plan for aligning facilities with enrollment trends?
Are there additional opportunities to lease unused space?
Are there community partnerships we should pursue?
Are there alternative educational or community uses for underutilized facilities?
How can we maximize the value of existing facilities while minimizing unnecessary costs to taxpayers?
What is Higley going to do with the vacant land voters approved to sell or lease?
These are not easy discussions. But avoiding them doesn’t make the problem go away.
The district currently maintains approximately $13 million in M&O reserves and nearly $6.5 million in capital carryforward. Those reserves provide stability, but they are not a substitute for long-term planning. If enrollment continues to decline, reserves alone will not solve the challenge of maintaining significant excess capacity.
Taxpayers deserve a district that plans ahead instead of reacting after the fact. They deserve transparency about enrollment trends, building utilization, and long-term costs.
The lease approved on May 5 is a positive step. It brings in revenue and puts some unused space to productive use. But one lease agreement is not a long-term facilities strategy.
I believe the next step is for the district to begin a formal long-range facilities planning process. Whether through a board committee, community task force, or strategic planning effort, we need to start having honest discussions about enrollment trends, facility utilization, future land use, and the long-term costs associated with maintaining excess capacity.
The goal should not be to predetermine outcomes. The goal should be to develop a thoughtful 10-year plan that aligns our facilities with the students we serve and the resources available to support them.
Those conversations should happen before circumstances force decisions upon us.
Most importantly, taxpayers deserve confidence that every possible dollar is being directed toward students rather than maintaining excess capacity.
The goal isn’t to preserve buildings. The goal is to educate students and use taxpayer dollars wisely in support of that mission.
When we keep that priority in mind, the path forward becomes much clearer.
Texas is once again proving why it stands as America’s unrivaled energy powerhouse.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), more than 66% of planned U.S. natural gas pipeline capacity additions for 2026 and 2027 — roughly 29.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) out of a national total of 44.9 Bcf/d — originate in the Lone Star State.
This marks a second major pipeline expansion boom in just over a decade, far outpacing other regions like Louisiana (19%). While the Marcellus/Utica shale in the Northeast remains hobbled by partisan politics in New York that have blocked critical takeaway capacity for years, Texas and its booming economy moves inexorably ahead.
This infrastructure surge is a direct response to exploding demand across multiple sectors. Permian Basin producers, sitting atop the nation’s most prolific oil and gas play, have long grappled with stranded associated gas from thousands of oil wells. Gross natural gas withdrawals in the Permian hit record levels, exceeding 21 Bcf/d in recent years, but pipeline constraints have periodically led to flaring or negative prices at the Waha Hub in the southwest Texas panhandle. New pipelines are needed to unlock this resource, turning waste into wealth and boosting economic output.
The global LNG export market provides another powerful driver. U.S. LNG exports have surged, with Texas facilities playing a starring role, exporting billions in value and supplying allies worldwide. Projects like NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG and others along the Gulf of America coast require big volumes of reliable feedgas.
Permian supplies complement output from the Haynesville, Cotton Valley, and Bossier plays, feeding terminals that position America as far and away the world’s top LNG exporter. Without expanded pipelines, these export ambitions, and the jobs, tax revenue, and geopolitical leverage they deliver, could struggle to meet rising global demand.
Domestically, Texas power providers are racing to add natural gas-fired generation to the ERCOT grid. Over 130 proposed gas power plant projects could add up to 58 GW of capacity, driven by surging electricity demand.
Governor Greg Abbott’s Texas Energy Fund has already greenlit major facilities, such as a 1,350 MW plant in Ward County. These plants provide reliable, dispatchable power essential for a grid that has been overloaded with intermittent wind and solar capacity.
The AI and data center boom adds yet more urgency. Hyperscale facilities in Texas are increasingly turning to behind-the-meter natural gas generation — on-site power plants dedicated to the facility. Companies like VoltaGrid, Energy Transfer, and others are deploying gigawatts of gas-fired capacity for Oracle, Vantage, and other clients. In the Permian Basin region, developers pair associated gas with microgrids to power AI campuses directly. This approach not only meets explosive demand but also monetizes stranded gas while shielding local ratepayers.
These myriad converging demand drivers — Permian takeaway, LNG exports, ERCOT reliability, and AI infrastructure — have combined to create a compelling case for rapid pipeline expansion. Projects like the Blackcomb Pipeline (2.5 Bcf/d from Waha to Agua Dulce), Hugh Brinson, and Rio Bravo exemplify the momentum. This rapid buildout echoes the shale revolution’s earlier infrastructure wave but on an even grander scale, with tens of billions in investment flowing into the Texas economy.
What it all boils down to is the enduring reality that, despite a half-decade of incessant narratives about the supposed death of fossil fuels and a mythical energy transition, the world wants and need more natural gas. This second major, Texas-based pipeline boom in just the past decade also highlights the reality that, more than any other state, Texas is set to fuel America’s energy future.
While Texas is blessed with the geology and geography needed to step into this role, a state government which values the industry is equally critical to success. Governor Greg Abbott isn’t Kathy Hochul or Gavin Newsom: If he were, all these demand drivers would be forced to search elsewhere to fill their natural gas needs and the pipelines needed to deliver it. It’s a lesson that voters in other states should take to heart.
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.
For decades, Arizona has been a national model for how to responsibly manage and develop water resources. As a result, our state has enjoyed years of economic growth while welcoming millions of new residents to live and work here.
Then, Governor Katie Hobbs came along.
In 2023, the Hobbs administration imposed sweeping new water rules that effectively halted new home construction across much of the Valley, under the guise that it was needed to “save water.”
Now, a court has struck down the policy, ruling that state regulators ignored the law when creating the rules behind it. But the fallout from this disastrous decision is only beginning. And Arizona taxpayers could soon be forced to pay more than $1 billion for the damage.
Arizona Is Not Running Out of Water
Despite the alarmist rhetoric coming from Hobbs and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), our state is not running out of water.
In fact, our state uses less water today than it did in 1990—even though our population has doubled to more than 7 million residents. That’s not a typo. Over the past three decades, Arizona has welcomed millions of new residents while reducing total water consumption.
How is that possible? Through better water management, technological advancements in conservation and reuse, and the gradual conversion of agricultural land to residential development. The result is a system that has allowed Arizona to grow responsibly while protecting its long-term water supply.
But instead of building on this successful model, Hobbs declared a sweeping housing moratorium—halting new single-family housing construction across much of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
A Manufactured Crisis With Real Consequences
In addition to destroying billions in economic activity and further exacerbating the housing shortage crisis, Hobbs’ moratorium created a number of additional problems…
For years, Americans were told our schools existed to expand minds, encourage debate, and prepare young people to think independently. Today, too many do the opposite.
Conservative voices are being shouted down, disinvited, or silenced by radical activists and administrators more interested in appeasing the far left than defending free speech. What happened recently in South Carolina is just the latest of numerous incidents across the country.
Lt. Governor Pamela Evette, a successful businesswoman, unapologetic conservative, and strong supporter of President Trump, was pushed out of delivering the commencement address at South Carolina State University after activists objected to her political beliefs. University officials cited “security concerns,” but the real issue was ideological intolerance.
From Ivy League institutions to taxpayer-funded public universities to our K-12 schools, activists increasingly dictate who may speak, which ideas are acceptable, and what students are allowed to hear.
Administrators routinely surrender to pressure from the left while treating conservatives as threats rather than participants in open debate. That should concern every American.
Our education system has drifted far from its mission. Instead of teaching students how to think critically, schools now teach them what to think. Activism has replaced scholarship, and ideological conformity has replaced intellectual diversity. And taxpayers are funding it.
The time for cosmetic reform is over. America needs structural change.
First, tenure at publicly funded colleges and universities must end.
Tenure was intended to protect academic inquiry. Too often now, it protects ideological activists from accountability while classrooms become platforms for political agendas unrelated to education.
After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last year, several professors openly celebrated or excused political violence against someone they opposed politically. That moment exposed how radical parts of academia have become.
Lt. Governor Evette rightfully called for the end of tenure because employment should be based on performance and professionalism, not guaranteed lifetime protection.
Second, our schools must return to education instead of indoctrination.
Parents expect schools to teach reading, writing, math, science, history, and critical thinking. They do not send their children to be immersed in divisive identity politics, anti-American rhetoric, or gender ideology.
Students should graduate understanding the principles that built this country, capable of thinking independently, and able to engage with opposing viewpoints.
Finally, parents must have real authority over their children’s education.
For too long, bureaucracies and special interests trapped families in failing schools. Every parent deserves the freedom to choose the educational setting that best serves their child, whether public, charter, private, technical, or homeschool.
Choice creates accountability. Competition drives improvement. Parents, not government officials, should make these decisions.
This is not just a South Carolina problem. It is happening nationwide.
We need conservative leaders like Lt. Governor Pamela Evette, who are willing to confront these problems directly. She understands what is at stake and has consistently fought for parental rights, accountability, school choice, and classrooms focused on education instead of activism.
If we fail to reclaim our schools and universities now, the consequences will reach far beyond the classroom.
Mick Zais is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and has been a dedicated conservative voice in the fight for education reform. Zais served as Acting Secretary of Education and as Deputy Secretary under the first Trump Administration. He also served as Superintendent of Education in South Carolina from 2011 to 2015 and President of Newberry College from 2000 to 2010. Zais retired from the Army as a brigadier general.
