Something is missing from the Democratic Party’s 2026 message, and its absence speaks louder than any speech. Climate change, the issue party leaders once called an existential emergency, has gone quiet. Journalists even have a name for it: climate hushing.
An analysis of congressional press releases by Inside Climate News found that Democratic mentions of climate change have plummeted since 2025, while talk of energy affordability has surged. Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, once a green energy champion, now sells herself as a fighter against high utility bills, and her pivot is being called a blueprint for the party.
Behind closed doors, the shift is even starker. At a recent Senate Democratic strategy retreat, the polling presentation did not ask a single question about climate change. One attendee, Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Whitehouse, called it a massive blind spot.
Give the strategists credit. They read the same election returns everyone else did. The party’s own review of the 2024 loss reportedly found that green transition messaging frightened workers in traditional industries who feared for their jobs. Voters punished Democrats for the high cost of living, and nothing raised that cost more visibly than energy.
But notice what the party retreated toward. They did not change the subject to something safe and unrelated. They ran straight at affordability, the exact ground where their climate record is weakest. You do not flee toward your own weakness. You flee toward it only when you have no choice, because the voters are already holding their ever-increasing electric bills.
And those bills tell the story. The average American residential electricity rate has climbed about 25% in four years, from just over 15 cents per kilowatt hour in 2022 to nearly 19 cents this spring. In the last year alone, rates jumped more than 7%.
Federal forecasters expect another increase in 2026, with the sharpest pain along the East Coast, where climate mandates are most aggressive. These are not acts of nature. They are the predictable result of policies that shut down reliable power plants and force expensive, weather-dependent replacements onto the grid. Like adding an undependable car to your family’s budget. It just increases your costs if you want reliability.
The price tag reaches well beyond the monthly bill. When Congress passed the ill-named Inflation Reduction Act, budget scorekeepers pegged its energy subsidies at around 370 billion dollars over ten years. The real number keeps climbing.
The Congressional Budget Office now estimates the clean energy tax credits alone will add 825 billion dollars to the deficit, and the Cato Institute puts the full range as high as nearly 2 trillion dollars over the same window. That is a wealth transfer from ordinary ratepayers and taxpayers to well-connected developers, and it buys higher prices, not lower ones.
Here is the admission hiding inside the silence. If the green transition were actually making energy cheaper, climate and affordability would be the same message, and there would be nothing to hush. The party could brag about both in the same breath. The fact that its own strategists had to choose between them, and chose to bury climate, is a confession that the two pull in opposite directions.
Some Democrats insist this is a recast, not a retreat. They argue that cheap solar and wind are the affordability answer, and that voters can be won by promising climate policy will lower bills.
But that claim collapses on contact with its own logic. If renewables were truly the cheapest power, they would not need mandates, subsidies, and regulatory waivers to force utilities to buy them. You do not have to compel people to choose the cheaper option. The mandates exist precisely because the market, left alone, would choose otherwise.
The honest lesson is one conservatives have argued for years. Reliable, affordable energy and heavy-handed climate central planning cannot coexist. Americans want to keep the lights on and the bills low, and they have figured out which policies deliver that and which do not.
Democratic strategists have figured it out too. That is why they have stopped talking. The quiet is not a change of heart. It is a change of subject, and it amounts to an admission that the policies were too expensive and too restrictive to defend out loud. The rest of us should say plainly that we do not want less reliable and more expensive electricity.
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.
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?
This November, Tucson voters are being asked (again) to approve a 25-year franchise agreement between Tucson and Tucson Electric Power (TEP). Franchise agreements are generally standard arrangements that allow utilities to use public rights-of-way for poles, wires, and infrastructure. But there is nothing standard about this deal. Bundled with it is an “Energy Collaboration Agreement” that will quietly embed climate policy into Tucson’s governance for the next quarter century. Voters should read the fine print (and the price tag) before checking the box.
If Tucson voters are having déjà vu reading this proposal, it’s because it is awfully similar to what they have already said no to. In May 2023, Proposition 412 put a nearly identical TEP franchise agreement before the public, and voters rejected it by a 55-45 margin. That deal included a new 0.75% “community resilience fee” on top of the existing 2.25% franchise fee, with proceeds earmarked for undergrounding utility lines as well as funding the city’s Climate Action Plan. Despite voters already telling the city they don’t want it, city leaders and TEP have assumed residents really just want a more expensive version of the same thing – rebranding and trying to ream through for a second time the same agenda but at a cost of $64 million instead of $56 million.
What the franchise agreement really does is help TEP maintain infrastructure, expedite permitting, and improve outage response. But TEP can still operate without a franchise agreement, meaning this vote is not about whether Tucson continues receiving electricity. Instead, it creates the legal foundation for a broader political partnership between the city and the utility…
