A new report from McKinsey & Company, the “Global Energy Perspective,” lays bare what many of us – dismissed as “climate deniers” – have been asserting all along: Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be the dominant sources of global energy well past 2050.
The McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections. Last year, the management consultant’s models had coal demand falling 40% by 2035. Today, McKinsey projects an uptick of 1% over the same period. The dramatic reversal is driven by record commissioning of coal-fired power plants in China, unexpected increases in global electricity use, and the lack of viable alternatives for industries like steel, chemicals and heavy manufacturing.
The report states that the three fossil fuels will still supply up to 55% of global energy in 2050, a forecast that looks low to me. Today’s share for hydrocarbons is more than 60% for electricity generation and more than 80% for primary energy consumption.
In any case, McKinsey’s report confirms what seasoned energy analysts and pragmatic policymakers have long maintained: The energy transition will not be swift, simple, or governed solely by climate targets. In fact, this energy transition will not happen at all without large scale deployment of nuclear, geothermal or other technological innovations that prove practical.
In places such as India, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the top energy priorities are access, affordability and reliability, which together add up to national security. Planners are acutely aware of a trap: Sole reliance on weather-dependent power risks blackouts, industrial disruption, economic decline and civil unrest.
That is why many developing nations are embracing a dual track: continued investment in conventional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) while developing alternative technologies. McKinsey says this in consultancy lingo: “Countries and regions will follow distinct trajectories based on local economic conditions, resource endowment, and the realities facing particular industries.”
In countries like India, Indonesia and Nigeria, the scale of electrification and industrial expansion is enormous. These countries cannot afford to wait decades for perfect solutions. They need “reliable and good enough for now.” That means conventional fuels will be retained.
McKinsey’s analysis also underscores what physics and engineering dictate: Intermittent and weather-dependent sources, such as wind and solar, require vast land areas, backup batteries and generation and power-grid investments, none of which come cheaply nor quickly.
The technologies of wind and solar branded as renewable should instead be called economy killers. They make for expensive and unstable electrical systems that have brought energy-rich nations like Germany to their knees. After spending billions of dollars on unreliable wind turbines and solar panels and demolishing nuclear plants and coal plants, the country is struggling with high prices and economic stagnation.
The Germans now have a word for their self-inflicted crisis: Dunkelflaute. It means “dark doldrums”—a period of cold, sunless, windless days when their “green” grid fails. During a Dunkelflaute in November 2024, fossil fuels were called on to provide 70% of Germany’s electricity.
If “renewables” were truly capable, planners would shut down fossil fuel generation. But that is not the case. While wind and solar are pursued in some places, coal and natural gas remain much sought-after fuels. In the first half of 2025 alone, China commissioned about 21 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired capacity, which is more than any other country and the largest increase since 2016.
Further, China has approved construction of 25 GW of new coal plants in the first half of 2025. As of July, China’s mainland has nearly 1,200 coal plants, far outstripping the rest of the world.
McKinsey points to a dramatic surge in electricity demand driven by data centers, which is estimated to be about 17 % annually from 2022 to 2030 in the 38 OECD countries. This kind of growth in electricity use simply cannot be met by wind and solar.
When analysts, journalists and engineers point out these realities, they’re branded as “shills” for the fossil fuel industry. However, it is not public relations to point out the physics and economics that make up the math for meeting the world’s energy needs. Dismissing such facts is to deny that reliable energy remains the bedrock of modern civilization.
The cost of foolish “green” policies is being paid in lost jobs, ruined businesses, disrupted lives and impoverishment that could have been avoided by wiser choices.
For those who have repeated energy realities for years, the vindication is bittersweet. The satisfaction of being right is tempered by the knowledge that many have suffered because reality has been ignored.
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation andScience and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va. 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.
Two months ago, Arizona’s monopoly utilities and their political allies were patting themselves on the back about the expansion and development of a couple of new natural gas projects that they claim will help the Grand Canyon state keep up with growing energy demand.
On the surface, an announcement of new projects like the Transwestern Expansion should have been great news for Arizona ratepayers. Our state is in desperate need of more reliable, dispatchable power; especially after years of reckless green new deal investments that have raised costs and reduced reliability.
But sadly, it turns out that SRP’s enthusiasm for gas isn’t about expanding baseload power on the grid after all. The new gas capacity is instead being used to replace existing coal power generation that SRP has pledged to shut down in Arizona. All to meet ridiculous self-imposed carbon reduction goals and climate commitments that should have been junked a long time ago…
In today’s U.S. Senate, the filibuster has become both a symbol of obstruction and a tool of partisan power. To filibuster is to talk—or threaten to talk—long enough to stall or block legislation. The Constitution itself says nothing about this practice. It merely grants each chamber the power to determine its own rules. Over time, the Senate chose to allow unlimited debate, which can only be ended by invoking cloture—a supermajority vote of 60 senators.
The practical effect is that a minority of just 41 senators can stop the majority from acting. This turns the Founders’ concept of majority rule upside down.
Thomas Jefferson made the principle clear:
“The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis—the law of the greater part—is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal right; to consider the will of the society announced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons of importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learned.”
Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers, warned of the same danger:
“To give a minority a negative upon the majority…is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number.… The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or something approaching towards it…has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”
Those who defend the filibuster argue that removing it would allow whichever party holds power to impose its will unchecked. That concern is not unfounded—but it points to a deeper problem, one the Founders themselves addressed. If Americans no longer elect leaders bound by conscience and virtue, no rule or procedure can save the republic.
Benjamin Franklin warned that:
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
And John Adams echoed:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The lesson is timeless: the strength of our institutions depends not on clever procedural devices but on the character of those who serve within them. The filibuster may have evolved into a Senate tradition, but it stands at odds with the Founders’ first principle of republican government—majority rule among a moral and self-governing people.
If we wish to preserve that republic, we should restore the rule of the majority—and the virtue on which it was meant to rest.
America is a country founded on the principle that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For almost 250 years, these rights, freedoms, and values have shaped our nation into the world’s foremost superpower, a beacon of light and liberty to millions of onlookers, and extremely prosperous and generous.
None of these rights could have been sustained, passed down, or protected without the men and women who have served in the branches of our military for more than two centuries.
This week, we again honor the service and sacrifice of all those who have answered the call of duty to defend and preserve the United States of America for future generations. Since 1775, when the Continental Army was formed in our nation’s war for independence against England, over 40 million individuals are believed to have served in our military. Currently, there are more than two million men and women who serve either on active duty or in the reserve components. Each one of these people understood the gravity of their decision, and many have—and continue to say—they would serve again if given the opportunity.
While the vast majority of jobs in this country require a ‘clock in and clock out’ mindset, service to America in uniform requires an incredible degree of love, devotion, and a recognition of sacrifice. People serving in the military love this country and her citizens, and they will do anything to defend the Constitution and ideals that have made her the greatest in world history. They are devoted to country above self, understanding they are engaged in a higher purpose they may not comprehend in this life. And they recognize they will be called to sacrifice for the good of the nation. This sacrifice is observed in several ways, including lengthy deployments, injuries and psychological issues, and even death. When a man or woman volunteers for service to the United States military, they do so knowing they may be called upon to give their lives for the cause of freedom.
The level of love, devotion, and willingness to sacrifice from members of the military is very unique to the United States. Many countries around the world coerce individuals to serve and die in war. Other nations do not have the luxury of established militaries, inviting unrest within their borders. However, the American military is the most powerful in the world, keeping countless threats at bay, and comprised of individuals who voluntarily choose to serve in the defense of their country. Even during periods of our nation’s history when there was a military draft, those who stepped forward had a superior understanding of the nature of the dangers facing the world and the United States and were willing to do whatever it took to eradicate the evils around them. This is why the history books call those who fought in World War Two, “The Greatest Generation.” Perhaps Claudia Pemberton, an author and member of the Military Writers Society of America, put it best, when she said, “America without her soldiers would be like God without his angels.”
It’s easy to live in a country such as ours and take what we have for granted because we enjoy so much around us. But these freedoms and values did not simply appear, and they are not guaranteed to last. There is definitely a complacency that has crept in our communities and exponentially grown throughout the years and generations. Our children are not being raised in a country that appreciates or values our veterans and their service as it once has or ought.
We must, however, recognize that these liberties and our way of life did not appear out of nowhere, and that it has not been easy to retain our freedoms. Millions have fought and served under our flag to ensure that American liberty is passed from generation to generation. They do so without expectation of thanks or praise, but these reactions to their service cannot become secondhand or muted. On the contrary, we should redouble our efforts to honor and celebrate our veterans and what they have done to defend our great nation.
Thus, the importance of Veterans Day cannot be overstated. It is not just another special date on the calendar we can take for granted. It is a day when our nation must rally together in unity to help kindle appreciation for our military veterans in the next generation. President Abraham Lincoln correctly noted, “Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure.” If we are to keep the flame of the United States of America burning for another 250 years, Veterans Day must be cherished by all Americans. Thank you to all the men and women who have served in the United States military. Your service and heroism is greatly appreciated.
Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14.
I recently conducted an informal survey among about 50 of my neighbors, asking them, “What do you think your City of Mesa utility payment is used for at the city?” Some said ‘water.’ Some said, ‘water and sewage.’ And a few said, “water, sewage, and trash.” But only 2 of 5o included ‘other city government services including police and fire.’ Those two individuals had been at an Encore Conservative Club meeting where we had discussed this exact subject.
I believe this simple survey is representative of the entire City of Mesa, where more than 90% of the residents are totally unaware that 30% of their utility bill is transferred from utility payments to the “General Governmental Fund” for the City.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, there are two definitions of “transparency” that are relevant to this discussion: 1) the quality of something, such as a situation or an argument, that makes it easy to understand, and 2) the quality in something, such as an excuse or a lie, that allows somebody to see the truth easily. The current City of Mesa utility bill is not “transparent” according to these definitions because it does not make clear to those paying the bill what they are being charged for: 70% for city utilities and 30% for other government services. I would like to challenge the mayor, and city council to make Mesa utility bills more transparent by including exactly what is paid for. And I might also suggest that the 30% of utility bills for general governmental uses should not have sales tax applied to it.
Councilman Adams stated in the September 22nd council meeting that the City was transparent about this subject because “if you looked you could find it.” But I would argue based on the above informal survey that you have to know that you need to look and further, that you need to understand where to look! While I applaud the City posting a special link to proposed utility rate adjustments on its website, including dates of relevant city council meetings, an informative video, and an online comment card, the information is somewhat obtuse. A 164-page “Current Utility Rate Book” is not at all helpful for the average Mesa resident; the staff presentations from the September 22nd council meeting are helpful but take multiple steps in website navigation to find (if you know they exist there).
I want to be abundantly clear. I am not accusing anyone, council nor staff, of concealing or hiding anything. Council and staff are following the existing process. But it has taken me more than a year of making mistakes and misinterpretations to understand how the City works, including being politely but repeatedly corrected by city financial staff (thank you!). I am a former Director of Engineering who has managed budgets of millions of dollars. If it takes me this much effort to understand, what chance does the average resident have?
Even for those who know that their utility payments contribute to the general governmental fund, few understand the consequences of the rigid application of the 30%. Because it is a percentage applied to the total revenues, it means that there is an “automatic tax increase” due to the corresponding increase in General Funds Transfers every time there is a utility rate increase. The City Ordinance (#5559) does not require 30%, but both city council and staff very rigidly apply it each year. In past years, there has been no discussion of whether this tax increase is needed or not. It just happens. I would like to challenge the city council to hold that tax increase to zero (no increase, no decrease) for this upcoming year, rather than just applying the 30%; the net result will be 28.8% instead. This will have zero impact on utilities because their requested increases can be approved as requested.
But this proposal (to fix the Transfer to General Fund from Utility Fund) illustrates another complication: the value for the General Fund Transfer, currently shown as $147M, was set during the budget process in May/June of this year. So, any change now would require city staff to revise the budget. That’s not impossible but highly unlikely especially considering these funds are earmarked for public safety. Public safety funding can be held constant by using other funds such as Environmental and Sustainability.
Another place for unintended obfuscation is in the Debt Service Transfers, with a proposed increase of $18.7M or 16.1% for FY25/26. This line item covers paying for principal and interest on utility bonds. This is the biggest increase for this year and, all future years, based on the 5-year plan presented to the council. Debt Service Transfers total 38% over the next 5 years leading to a total projected increase of 51%! These bonds are approved in a wholly separate meeting in June by the council, so most of these increases are required or major construction projects will be stopped. Most residents of Mesa assume that they get to vote on “bonds,” which is true of bonds supported by secondary property taxes (and school bonds), but not utility bonds, which are approved by city council vote. What the average resident does not understand is that when utility bonds are approved at a council meeting in June, it is a commitment to increase utility rates for up to 30 years into the future. And we already have a commitment of 38% increases in the next 5 years!
Taken together, the General Fund Transfer increase ($9.3M), and the Debt Service Transfer increase ($18.7M) constitute 65% of the requested utility rate increase but are effectively pro forma because they were approved previously. While not at all hidden, is that transparent to the typical Mesa resident?
Finally, I do support the proposed “Water/Wastewater Capacity Fee,” which is related to the utility rate adjustments because if passed, it removes $400M in future utility bonds from current Mesa residents and instead charges developers and new growth users to pay for the additional capacity. If passed, this capacity fee will result in a smaller increase in this year’s adjustments but will reduce future increases even more.
One last picky comment: the utility rate adjustment presentations use a “typical user,” but the exact definition of which seems to be a pretty minimal water user. I would suggest that the city staff use a statistically significant definition by presenting a “median” user, someone for whom 50% of city water users pay (or use) more, and 50% pay (or use) less.
I hope there will be good conversations on these subjects at the city council meetings on November 17th, for introduction of the utility rate adjustments and December 1st, for the public meeting on utility rates.
David Winstanley is a retired Director of Engineering at Honeywell Aerospace, former Chair of LD15 Republicans, and a conservative activist for local issues in the East Valley.
Bill Gates, the billionaire Microsoft founder who has served as a prominent advocate for prevailing narratives that fuel the climate alarm movement, set the climate debate on fire this week with a long essay signaling a major shift in direction.
Rather than continuing efforts to use atmospheric content of carbon dioxide as a global thermostat, Gates now advocates a refocusing on efforts to mitigate for the impacts of climate change and dedicate more funding to “the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.”
Gates’s belated endorsement of an alternative approach long advocated by many critics of climate alarmism is laudable. But one must wonder what took him so long.
One argument Gates puts forth to justify his shift in narrative is, as he puts it, “surprisingly, excessive cold is far deadlier, killing nearly 10 times more.” But that only comes as a surprise to those who haven’t been paying attention to data that has long been in the public domain. Australian analyst Bjorn Lomborg, himself a believer in man-cause warming theory, has regularly made the same point for years now.
Gates also veers away from climate alarmist dogma with the recognition that “using more energy is a good thing,” because it means economic growth, slamming efforts by alarmists to deny companies the ability to produce more fossil fuels. Noting that such “keep-it-in-the-ground pressure” “has had almost no impact on global emissions,” Gates writes, “but it has made it harder for low-income countries to get low-interest loans for power plants that would bring reliable electricity to their homes, schools, and health clinics.”
More than any other aspect of Mr. Gates’s change in narrative, this statement reveals a divergence from the central goal of the climate alarm global religion. It has long been obvious that the goal has been to intentionally and massively raise the cost of all forms of energy to force the world’s masses to consume less of it, not more.
Some of the most prominent climate alarm advocates, like Bill McKibben, have long railed against affordable energy and continuing economic growth as inherent evils that must be ended to save the planet. So, this is a real bit of heresy by Gates, and it will be interesting to observe how this part of his message is received at the upcoming COP 30 climate conference and the annual World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland next January.
Gates also diverges from a prevailing alarmist talking point when he writes, “Although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat,” he writes. “The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been.” Again, true, but we must wonder why Gates remained silent about this reality when Joe Biden spent four years repeatedly claiming that climate change was our most existential threat?
In an interview with Bloomberg on Thursday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright noted Gates’s change of narrative, saying he has had “multiple great dialogs with Bill Gates over the last year multiple times and at some length,” adding that Gates has “done fabulous stuff in public health around the world, and I’m thrilled to see him talk in a more candid way about this issue.”
Wright added his own view that, “climate change is a real thing. It’s a real challenge. It is just not remotely close to the world’s top challenge.”
Former World Bank Group President David Malpass told me in an interview he also views Gates’s shift favorably. “I was very happy to see (Bill Gates’ new view), of course,” Malpass said. “Wouldn’t itbe good if we saw Antonio Gutierrez, the head of the United Nations, John Kerry or Al Gore understand the logic that Bill Gates is laying out? Whatever people think about the warming of the planet, what was so harmful in the climate fanaticism was they didn’t care at all about the cost or about the opportunity cost.”
It’s hard to know what motivated Mr. Gates’s sudden narrative shift on this crucial topic. Regardless, his reconsideration can only help efforts to adopt a more serious, reality-based approach to addressing the problem.
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.
