When electric vehicle subsidies were introduced around 2010, they were sold as a short-term fix to allow the undeveloped EV market to get its legs and compete with Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). The subsidies were justified on the basis that EVs, emitting no tail pipe emissions, would reduce global warming, later to be known as climate change.
Fifteen years later, far longer than any normal probation period, the experiment has clearly not worked. According to the Expedia Automotive Trend Report, only 7.9% of new car registrations in 2024 were for EVs. Just 9.3% of the 286 million cars on the road were EVs, paltry numbers indeed considering the strenuous efforts of the federal government to stoke their success.
Purchasers of new EVs are provided with a $7,500 federal subsidy, plus state subsidies where available. Used cars can pull down up to $4,000 in purchasing aid. Commercial vehicles over 14,000 pounds can receive $40,000. Home chargers are eligible for $1,000.
Even though the fuels of ICE cars are heavily taxed, the charging stations for EVs are subsidized too. Battery factories get subsidized. Then there is the whole sorry history of boondoggle giveaways subsidizing EV production and failed loans beginning with the notorious Solyndra debacle.
Canoo lost $900 million and produced 122 cars. Taxpayers got stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars in failed loans from Lordstown Motors, which manufactured 56 vehicles total.
EV drivers don’t have to chip in for road construction and maintenance costs, since they don’t pay gas tax or any fuel-based funding source. On the contrary, theirs is heavily subsidized. Their out-of-pocket cost is equivalent to $1.21 per gallon, but direct and indirect subsidies from government and utilities push the true cost to $17.33 per gallon, according to the Heritage Foundation.
EVs require a lot of juice to operate. Even though the EV market has failed to develop as expected, many major utility companies are already struggling to meet the increased demand. They warn that future EV mandates will require greatly expanded infrastructure for electricity generation and charging stations.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation calculates EV cars would cost $48,688 more without the production and purchase subsidies alone. Maybe all this public expense would be justified if EVs substantially reduced hydrocarbon emissions, but they don’t.
These calculations are tricky because net operating emissions obviously depend on the fuels used to produce the electricity. The disappointing failure of solar and wind to supply abundant, reliable energy and our still-limited access to nuclear energy have resulted in fossil fuels producing most of the electricity used to propel these “emission free” cars.
Moreover, the battery manufacturing and disposal processes are intensely energy consuming. Most studies show little, if any, overall benefit from switching to EVs. Yet the overwhelming evidence that EVs cost a ton and do’’t do much good have so far not deterred the ambitions of government and the enviros to force all or most Americans into them.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas emission standards still require that 32% of new automobile sales be EVs or hybrid by 2027, a fourfold increase in two years from now! By 2032, 70% of sales must be electric. By 2050, we must be emitting no carbon at all.
Here’s a newsflash. That is’’t going to happen. The world’s biggest polluters (China and India) aren’t on board and even in the West, citizens are clearly not willing to crater their economy for a dubious ideological goal with better solutions available.
Meanwhile, government continues mandating that car companies sell EVs to customers who simply do’’t want them even with the massive incentives. What could go wrong?
Companies that can are fleeing the market. Ford projects that it will lose $5.5 billion on EVs this year, which they are forced to produce to meet the EV fleet mandates. That’s $60,000 per car sold, an amount they seemingly anticipate will eventually be bailed out by government.
Look, it’s America. EVs are actually cool and fun to drive. People who want them and can afford them should have them. But there is no reason that the rest of us, who derive no benefit, should have to pay for them.
Let the bubble burst.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
During a 12-minute video appearance at the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference held in London, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told the audience that “Net zero by 2050 “is a sinister goal.”
That is a bold statement, especially given that it was delivered to an audience sitting in the United Kingdom, where both major political parties that have traditionally governed the country – the Conservative “Tories” and the far-left Labour Party – have spent the past decade pushing their country to meet its net zero goals as if it were a matter of religious faith. Regardless of the obvious negative economic and social consequences that have been heaped upon UK citizens, and equally obvious futility of the entire effort, leaders of both parties have kept the country on this ruinous path.
As Wright went on to point out, net zero by 2050 is “both unachievable by any practical means, but the aggressive pursuit of it…has not delivered any benefits, but it’s delivered tremendous costs.” This is objectively true, the most painful example being the rapid deindustrialization of the formerly strong British economy and the accompanying rapacious condemnation of thousands of acres of arable lands to become home to huge wind and solar installations.
As Wright points out, “no one’s going to make an energy-intensive product in the United Kingdom anymore.” A clear object lesson in that reality came in September when venerable steelmaker Tata Steel shut down the last existing steelmaking plant in the UK.
Climate zealots in both major parties celebrated that event, but we must ask what there really is to celebrate? Sure, the Labour politicos get to virtue signal about the elimination of X tons of carbon dioxide emissions, but in a global sense, that’s meaningless. The UK still needs steel – the only difference now is that the steel that used to be made by highly-paid workers in domestic mills will now be imported steel made by poverty waged workers in Pakistan, China and other mainly Asian countries.
Meanwhile, the emissions created by making the steel in those other countries with lower environmental regulations will be far larger than from steel that used to be made in the UK. As Wright pointed out at the ARC conference, “This is not energy transition. This is lunacy.”
He isn’t wrong.
On Feb. 13, the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) published a report showing that construction of new coal-fired power plants in China reached a ten-year high in 2024. CREA finds that “China approved 66.7 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity in 2024, with approvals picking up in the second half after a slower start to the year.” It all belies the favored narrative on the political left that China is leading the world in converting its power systems to renewables. In reality, the expansion of its coal sector may actually be accelerating again.
That renewed Chinese focus on expanding its coal power fleet is driven in large part by the zealous focus by globalist leaders in the UK and other western countries – Germany is another great example – on deindustrializing their own economies to satisfy their obsession over atmospheric plant food.
The making of steel and other heavy industrial processes requires reliable, affordable power generation that runs 24 hours every day, 7 days every week. Whether politicians like it or not, coal is the fuel that most reliably and consistently meets all those tests.
Thus, if China and other Asian nations are destined to inherit all the heavy industries being killed off by virtue signaling Western nations, they will need many more coal power plants to power them. This really isn’t complicated.
Meanwhile, the UK can no longer manufacture its own steel or myriad other industrial products that are essential to modern human existence. If the Labour government continues its policy of condemning vast swaths of British farmland to house more and more wind and solar sites, the kingdom will soon no longer be able to even feed its people.
All to satisfy this odd religious dogma based on an obsession over plant food. Lunacy, indeed.
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 Trump administration has been hard at work dismantling offices of “environmental justice” in the federal government.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it began implementing Trump’s executive order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The agency placed on leave 171 employees in DEI and environmental justice offices.
The EPA intends to close the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, The Washington Post reported. Trump appointees at the Justice Department announced they would restructure the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Shortly after her confirmation, Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded any “memoranda, guidance, or similar directive that implement the prior administration’s ‘environmental justice’ agenda.”
“Going forward, the Department will evenhandedly enforce all federal civil and criminal laws, including environmental laws,” Bondi noted.
Why does this matter?
“Environmental justice” refers to the toxic brew of critical race theory and climate alarmism. According to critical race theory, America is institutionally racist against black people and other minorities and in favor of white people. According to climate alarmism, the burning of fossil fuels will bring about Armageddon.
The EPA defines “environmental justice” as ensuring that Americans “are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers” (emphasis added).
Trump entered office promising to unleash American energy and reverse the Biden administration’s promotion of critical race theory and its application in the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” movement. This diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) movement aims to promote some racial minorities, rejecting the colorblind approach of focusing on merit or competence.
While President George H.W. Bush established the EPA’s Office of Environmental Equity — the office that President Bill Clinton would later rename the Office of Environmental Justice — President Joe Biden hypercharged its mission, directing all-of-government efforts on DEI, restrictions on fossil fuels, and a promotion of less reliable forms of energy, like wind and solar.
In doing so, Biden followed the demands of activist groups, many of which staffed and advised his administration.
As I note in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” Biden tapped climate alarmists for key leadership positions.
Biden picked Michael Regan, a vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund, to head up the EPA. He selected Laura Daniel-Davis, a vice president at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), to serve at the Department of the Interior. He nominated Tracey Stone-Manning, another NWF staffer who confessed to typing out a letter on behalf of tree-spiking eco-terrorists, to head the Bureau of Land Management.
Gina McCarthy, who headed EPA under President Barack Obama, became president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) until Biden appointed her national climate adviser.
When Trump moved against the EPA’s environmental justice office, NRDC released a statement condemning the move as a “disgrace.” Who did NRDC enlist to make the statement? None other than Matthew Tejada, who directed the Office of Environmental Justice from 2013 to 2022.
“The Trump EPA is abandoning the communities across our nation that need help the most,” Tejada said. “Shuttering the environmental justice office will mean more toxic contaminants, dangerous air, and unsafe water in communities across the nation that have been most harmed by pollution in the past.”
That conclusion, of course, relies on the assumptions of critical race theory and climate alarmism, however. If America is not institutionally racist but rather a country with civil rights laws that protect citizens of all races from discrimination, the EPA does not need an “environmental justice” office to combat pollution for Americans of specific skin colors.
If the predictions of climate disaster are overblown and based on false assumptions that exaggerate the risks when actual deaths from climate disaster have declined by 99% over the past century, then perhaps the EPA need not invest extra funds in an office of environmental justice. If fossil fuels have gotten substantially cleaner, perhaps the EPA should focus on specific air quality issues, rather than premonitions of global climate doom.
This seems to be at least part of the reasoning behind EPA’s restructure.
“Under President Trump, the EPA will be focused on our core mission to protect human health and the environment, while Powering the Great American Comeback,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement Tuesday. “The previous Administration used DEI and Environmental Justice to advance ideological priorities, distributing billions of dollars to organizations in the name of climate equity. This ends now.”
“We will be good stewards of tax dollars and do everything in our power to deliver clean air, land, and water to every American, regardless of race, religion, background, and creed,” he added.
While pollution affects Americans in different ways, the EPA need not indulge in critical race theory and climate alarmism to effectively combat the real threats Americans face. Rather than addressing supposed institutional racism and fossil fuel-induced disaster, the EPA should focus on its actual mission: protecting Americans from concrete instances of pollution and environmental harms.
Of course, those humdrum concerns don’t require as much federal funding and staff — and that might explain the real reason behind the Left’s freakout over Trump’s move.
Tyler O’Neil is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, managing editor of The Daily Signal, and the author of two books: “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.”
The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held its regular meeting on February 11th. And it was significant for several reasons.
Most notably, the District’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Maintenance & Operations and District Additional Assistance Projections were presented. (You can view the presentation and hear the discussion on the budget projections starting a little after the 1:08 mark of this video.)
From the budget presentation, it’s clear that the SUSD’s financial troubles are largely due to declining enrollment. The average daily membership (ADM), which tracks enrollment, is used to determine state funding, including Proposition 123. Under Dr. Menzel, enrollment has consistently dropped. As of February 2025, enrollment stands at 19,367, which is a decrease of 390 students from last year, which was down 355 from the previous year. Over the past seven years, enrollment has fallen by 13%, from 22,608. Dr. Menzel has been superintendent since July 2020, and despite receiving a bonus every year and a pay raise with a contract extension, he has failed to meet any of the academic performance goals set by the Board.
Could the decline in enrollment be due to the dismal academic performance under Dr. Menzel?
Last year, in SUSD, 8,100 students were not proficient in English-Language Arts (ELA), 9,400 were not proficient in math, and over 12,000 were not proficient in science. Yet over 98% are passed on to the next grade or graduate. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly, but the continuation of a trend at SUSD.
Across all SUSD 5th graders, there are an average of 300 students who are highly proficient in either ELA, math, or science. That means over 1,100 5th graders are not highly proficient. And 600 of those are not even proficient in either ELA, math, or science, yet they will be passed on to middle school.
At Coronado High School, 74% of the students are not proficient in reading, and 83% are not proficient in math, but 89% will graduate in 4 years. How can that be? Is this what Dr. Menzel means when he says SUSD is providing a future-focused, world-class education? What kind of future is he focused on for those students?
The District’s CFO, Shannon Crosier, did offer a “silver lining” to the enrollment decline, noting that staff reductions could help cover part of the projected budget shortfall—$1.2 million of the anticipated $2.9 to $4.2 million deficit (depending on Proposition 123)—and maintain the ratios as established by the Board. I guess that was the good news. But if enrollment is down, doesn’t that mean lower class sizes and a better teacher-to-student ratio? Why is that a bad thing? Why lay off teachers? Answer, Dr. Menzel doesn’t want to make meaningful cuts to District staff.
Both Ms. Crosier and Dr. Menzel pointed out that 85% of funds are allocated to schools, leaving only 15% for district-level expenses. As a result, the budget proposal includes the elimination of only 12 district-level FTE positions. However, according to them, meaningful budget cuts will also require eliminating 20 FTE school-level positions and 3 assistant principal positions.
When Board Member Carney questioned the impact of these cuts, especially considering the 59 instructional positions cut in the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, while adding 71 student support positions and 44 support and administration positions, Ms. Crosier promised to investigate the matter further. This trend of reducing instructional staff while maintaining student-teacher ratios amid declining enrollment seems to be continuing.
Member Pittinsky attributed the enrollment decline to changing demographics, a low capture rate (only about 50% of eligible students attend SUSD), and what he called systemic issues. He argued that without addressing these issues, the situation would remain unchanged. He added that without changes in the expense structure, 12 months from now we would be doing this again.
Changing the expense structure is one way to deal with the problem, but it doesn’t tackle the root cause of the declining enrollment.
Citing demographic changes and systemic issues as reasons for enrollment loss seems like a convenient excuse, especially when the key questions remain unanswered: Why are students leaving SUSD? Why is the capture rate so low? Perhaps Pittinsky, who chose Brophy over SUSD for his child, could shed some light on that.
It’s concerning that no one at the meeting seems willing to discuss the root cause of the declining enrollment. Could it be tied to the District’s poor academic performance, combined with the focus on social-emotional learning, gender identity, hiring social workers while laying off teachers, and Dr. Menzel’s broader efforts to disrupt and dismantle SUSD?
Why not address the expense structure right now? Cutting 12 staff positions for next year only represents 3% of the district’s staff, which doesn’t seem like a significant reduction. Why is no one questioning what district staff are doing? For instance, what purpose is served by the 13 FTE in Desegregation? Or the 13 FTE working on State and Federal Titles I, II, and V? How about the 10 working on Student Information? Do we need 7 FTE in the Communications Department and another 7 in Community Education?
Member Pittinsky also asked when the Board would be able to inject their values into the budgeting process. Dr. Menzel’s response, as usual, was long-winded and didn’t fully answer the question. But I’d ask Member Pittinsky: why not act now? You’ve acknowledged the need for an expense structure change. As a Board member, you have the power to ask tough questions about district staff activities and direct Ms. Crosier to prepare a budget based on substantial cuts to district-level staff. Again, do we need 13 FTE in Desegregation? Dr. Menzel claims they leave no stone unturned to tackle the problem, but I remain skeptical.
We should also be mindful of potential cuts to government funding, both state and federal, especially in light of President Trump’s executive orders on education. If these cuts materialize, the impact on the District could be significant.
This was just the first budget meeting, and more details will be presented on February 25th and March 4th. The proposed budget will be presented to the Governing Board on June 10th, with a public hearing and adoption scheduled for June 24th.
The June 10th meeting is a regular meeting, meaning public comments will be allowed with a two-minute time limit. A two-minute time limit will likely also be enforced during the public hearing on June 24th, with the Board voting to adopt the budget immediately after the hearing.
This is all by design. Dr. Menzel put together the budget with little to no input from the Board or the public. Then he presents it when there is very little time to make changes. Scheduling the public hearing just before the Board votes allows Dr. Menzel to say he is following the law, without getting public input in a meaningful way into the budget. He doesn’t care what the public thinks.
That’s why parents and anyone concerned about the direction of SUSD must speak up or ask questions directly to the District staff and Dr. Menzel. Inquire about what each department is doing and then ask yourself—and the Governing Board—whether we can afford to continue funding these activities. Then ask yourself if Dr. Menzel and his team have truly left no stone unturned.
If you care about the education of SUSD students, you need to speak up and let the Governing Board and Dr. Menzel know what your concerns and priorities are. Remember, they work for you!
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
President Donald Trump’s opening week included a flurry of executive orders seeking to make good on his promise to restore America’s energy dominance, sidelined by the Biden administration.
While we should all applaud the president’s vision for a secure energy future, Californians should be especially pleased. Even before taking office, the “Trump effect” helped restore a bit of sanity in the Golden State.
Five days before President Trump’s inauguration, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)rescinded its application for a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to extend its electric vehicle mandate to freight trains, citing “uncertainty presented by the incoming administration.” The first-of-its-kind regulation would have phased out diesel-fueled switch, industrial, and passenger trains by 2030 and freight trains by 2035 in favor of zero-emission trains.
Though now paused, CARB’s rationale for the rail electrification mandate mirrors broader green energy policies, and California will likely seek to revive it under a future Democratic administration. They shouldn’t.
CARB claimed the rule would be a net economic and environmental benefit, but ignored major costs. A report from my organization highlighted the substantial infrastructure upgrades needed to replace diesel engines with electric or hydrogen models. Further, transitioning to electric trains would have challenged the state’s already strained electricity grid. Lastly, the report shows that the emissions reductions CARB touted were greatly exaggerated.
California already has the highest electricity prices in the continental U.S. With more and more devices connecting to the grid, demand is expected to grow by 76% over the next couple of decades.
At the same time, California’s grid has become increasingly unreliable due to policies that force more and more renewables onto the system, exacerbating the risks of continued brownouts and blackouts.
The conversion of rail to zero-emission technologies that rely heavily on electrification would contribute to these problems. The CARB rule assumed the existence of energy infrastructure that simply does not exist.
New transmission and distribution line upgrades and incremental power generation would be necessary to accommodate the load growth necessary to comply with this mandate. Much of that new electricity generation would likely come from natural gas, which already accounts for 39% of the state’s electricity.
CARB’s claim that the switch to electric trains would reduce particulate matter by 7,400 tons, nitrogen oxides by 386,300, and greenhouse gas emissions by 21.6 million metric tons from 2023-2050 is questionable at best. There is no way that power systems, even in California, will be 100% renewable in the timeframe the rule was scheduled to take effect.
And, as already mentioned, new generation capacity would certainly include natural gas.
CARB’s suggested that hydrogen could serve as an alternative to electrification. This switch would also require additional upstream infrastructure, increase costs, and put upward pressure on emissions.
This new hydrogen would not even be “green,” since production from non-conventional resources is nowhere near the scale of hydrogen sourced from natural gas or coal gasification. Developing hydrogen pipelines could also drive emissions and costs higher.
CARB’s locomotive regulation was a high-cost, low-reward gamble. Thanks to President Trump, Californians dodged another disastrous energy policy — before he even took office.
Instead of trying to “Trump-proof” California, Gov. Gavin Newsom should be grateful for the opportunity to scrap more of Sacramento’s costly regulations.
“Drain the swamp” is fun to say, and it makes for a great slogan for an election campaign. But too often, that’s where it stops. How many times have you heard politician after politician use such a phrase only to be elected and leave the swamp intact—or make it murkier? But now, it’s 2025. President Trump is back in office, and he is setting a standard of excellence when it comes to draining the swamp—especially on some key issues. And Scottsdale’s newly elected city council is following his lead.
President Trump unleashed a torrent of Executive Orders that have unleashed fossil fuel production in America, rolled back the Green New Deal climate cult fantasy, ended DEI and other race-based hiring and employment practices, and is taking a sledgehammer to the administrative state by letting Elon Musk identify and eliminate billions in wasteful spending.
As we have watched the Trump team move at warp speed to deliver on their campaign promises, we were curious to see if any other state or local governments would follow Trump’s lead at plowing ahead with DOGE-style meaningful reform. Here in Arizona one city has: Scottsdale…
