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.
Last week, the newly elected Scottsdale City Council voted to repeal the city’s sustainability plan, a controversial measure championed by former Mayor David Ortega.
A statement emailed by Councilman and Vice Mayor Barry Graham ahead of the council’s vote outlined the serious concerns he and his colleagues had with the sustainability plan. He wrote that the plan “passed in the 11th hour by the lame-duck Council calls for city government to:
Reduce your household trash-output by 90% in 15 years.
Ration your electric usage—regardless of power source.
Ration water usage for single-family homes while giving businesses and apartments a pass.
Outsource local control to the agendas and politics of county government.
Redirect your tax dollars to speculative environmental programs.
Subject your home and business to monitoring and auditing.”
He added, “Because the prior council majority refused to compromise, the new council must consider whether to repeal and replace the plan with one that focuses on sustaining our economy, finances and quality-of-life.”
The vote during the first meeting of the newly constituted council, however, ended in newly elected Mayor Lisa Borowsky voting against the repeal and creation of a Sustainability Task Force to draft a replacement strategy, drawing immediate criticism. The vote nonetheless carried without Borowsky’s vote by a 4-3 margin, and the plan has been repealed.
The activist account on X, Scottsdale Voter, characterized the Sustainability Plan as the “Scottsdale ‘Green New Deal’ forced through by four 1-term lame-duck losers,” and condemned Borowsky following the vote. They wrote, “We’re in shock We worked hard to elect Mayor Borowsky[.] We knew Solange Whitehead is desperate to influence new councilors, just like when she ‘got ahold of Tom Durham.’”
They continued, “The Scottsdale ‘sustainability plan’ was one of disgraced Mayor Ortega’s proudest legacy pieces. It was a ‘green new deal’ shoved down Scottsdale’s throat. And Borowsky voted to protect it.”
The Scottsdale 'sustainability plan' was one of disgraced Mayor Ortega's proudest legacy pieces. It was a 'green new deal' shoved down Scottsdale's throat. And Borowsky voted to protect it
On her campaign website, Borowsky pitched as a Key Issue that she would “Develop a 20-year strategic plan focused on sustainability, economic diversity, and livability, engaging stakeholders in crafting a vision for the city’s future.”
According to the Resolution, the interim City Manager will work to establish a Community Sustainability Task Force that will examine the fiscal, population, and conservation needs of the city before making recommendations for a new plan.
Just a few years ago, ESG was all the rage in the banking and investing community as globalist governments in the western world focused on a failing attempt to subsidize an energy transition into reality. The strategy was to try to strangle fossil fuel industries by denying them funding for major projects, with major ESG-focused institutional investors like BlackRock and State Street, and big banks like J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs leveraging their control of trillions of dollars in capital to lead the cause.
But a funny thing happened on the way to a green Nirvana: It turned out that the chosen rent-seeking industries — wind, solar and electric vehicles — are not the nifty plug-and-play solutions they had been cracked up to be.
Even worse, the advancement of new technologies and increased mining of cryptocurrencies created enormous new demand for electricity, resulting in heavy new demand for finding new sources of fossil fuels to keep the grid running and people moving around in reliable cars.
In other words, reality butted into the green narrative, collapsing the foundations of the ESG movement. The laws of physics, thermodynamics and unanticipated consequences remain laws, not mere suggestions.
Making matters worse for the ESG giants, Texas and other states passed laws disallowing any of these firms who use ESG principles to discriminate against their important oil, gas and coal industries from investing in massive state-governed funds. BlackRock and others were hit with sanctions by Texas in 2023. More recently, Texas and 10 other states sued Blackrock and other big investment houses for allegedly violating anti-trust laws.
As the foundations of the ESG movement collapse, so are some of the institutions that sprang up around it. The United Nations created one such institution, the “Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative,” whose participants maintain pledges to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and adhere to detailed plans to reach that goal.
The problem with that is there is now a growing consensus that a) the forced march to a green energy transition isn’t working and worse, that it can’t work, and b) the chances of achieving the goal of net-zero by 2050 are basically net zero. There is also a rising consensus among energy companies of a pressing need to prioritize matters of energy security over nebulous emissions reduction goals that most often constitute poor deployments of capital. Even as the Biden administration has ramped up regulations and subsidies to try to force its transition, big players like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell have all redirected larger percentages of their capital budgets away from investments in carbon reduction projects back into their core oil-and-gas businesses.
The result of this confluence of factors and events has been a recent rush by big U.S. banks and investment houses away from this UN-run alliance. In just the last two weeks, the parade away from net zero was led by major banks like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and, most recently, JP Morgan. On Thursday, the New York Post reported that both BlackRock and State Street, a pair of investment firms who control trillions of investor dollars (BlackRock alone controls more than $10 trillion) are on the brink of joining the flood away from this increasingly toxic philosophy.
In June, 2023, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made big news when told an audience at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colorado that he is “ashamed of being part of this [ESG] conversation.” He almost immediately backed away from that comment, restating his dedication to what he called “conscientious capitalism.” The takeaway for most observers was that Fink might stop using the term ESG in his internal and external communications but would keep right on engaging in his discriminatory practices while using a different narrative to talk about it.
But this week’s news about BlackRock and the other big firms feels different. Much has taken place in the energy space over the last 18 months, none of it positive for the energy transition or the net-zero fantasy. Perhaps all these big banks and investment funds are awakening to the reality that it will take far more than devising a new way of talking about the same old nonsense concepts to repair the damage that has already been done to the world’s energy system.
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.
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego will now lead Climate Mayors, a coalition of 350 American mayors across 46 states working to advance progressive climate policies.
In a press release from the organization, Gallego committed to supplementing federal funding for climate initiatives using the private sector and philanthropy, expand influence of the Western Water Security Cohort into local governance, “extreme heat” mitigation, and further align member cities’ actions with Climate Mayors initiatives.
“I’ll focus on addressing extreme heat, strengthening partnerships, and ensuring all cities have the tools they need to advance climate action,” said Gallego.
I'm honored to lead as Chair of @ClimateMayors, a coalition of cities tackling the challenges of climate change.
Other members of Climate Mayors leadership include Boise, Idaho, mayor Lauren McLean; Atlanta, Georgia, mayor Andre Dickens; and Cleveland, Ohio, mayor Justin Bibb.
Last month, Climate Mayors committed to supporting the Biden administration’s new National Determined Contribution (NDC) target of 61 to 66 percent economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2035.
Climate Mayors executive director Kate Wright indicated the goals were feasible through commitments to energy and water efficiency programs and the expansion of “green” and “clean” infrastructure.
“Today’s announcement of a new U.S. NDC serves as an important goalpost for our unwavering ambition as subnational actors continue to lead the fight against climate change and advance America’s economic competitiveness,” said Wright. “Our membership of over 350 U.S. Mayors is ready to do its part to achieve our national target and build on the progress we’ve made over the last decade.”
The organization’s climate change initiatives include electric vehicle expansion, data collection on each city’s emission levels, a tracker for federal funding and grant opportunities, and provision of grants for partnerships between local governments and nonprofits.
Climate Mayors launched an electric vehicle purchasing collaborative in 2018 to expand city governance control and influence into county governments, transit agencies, port authorities, and colleges and universities. The coalition also committed to electrifying at least 50 percent of municipal fleets by 2030, and increasing electric vehicle chargers by at least 500 percent by 2035 (with 40 percent at least benefitting “disadvantaged” communities).
Last week, Climate Mayors announced a framework to develop equity-oriented electric vehicle plans. The coalition developed the framework alongside UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and Environment, The Greenlining Institute, and Forth Mobility. According to the framework, electric vehicle infrastructure should prioritize lower-income, non-white communities.
The coalition partnered with C40 Cities and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network to organize allocation of federal funding at the local level. Climate Mayors’ webpage for this planning links to the C40 Cities Knowledge Hub, which indicates that C40 Cities leads on the agenda for this initiative.
Gallego also sits on the steering committee of C40 Cities, serving as the North American representative on the international scale. As reported previously, a priority of C40 Cities is to eliminate meat and dairy consumption, new clothing purchases, and private car ownership.
Climate Mayors was founded in 2014 by three top Democrats: Biden’s ambassador to India and former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, president/CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and former Houston mayor Annise Parker, and former Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter.
Several other Arizona mayors retain memberships within Climate Mayors: Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, Tempe Mayor Corey Woods, Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow, Nogales Mayor Jorge Maldonado, and Flagstaff Mayor Becky Daggett.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Shortly before his death in 2006, I had the privilege of interviewing Milton Friedman over dinner in San Francisco. The last question I asked him was: What are the three things we had to do to make America more prosperous?
His answer I have never forgotten: “First, allow universal school choice; second, expand free trade; third and most importantly, cut government spending.” That was long before Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden came along.
There are not too many problems in America that cannot be traced back to the growth of big and incompetent government.
It is notable that the two big bursts of inflation during modern times both occurred when government spending exploded. The first was the gigantic expansion of the LBJ “war on poverty” welfare state in the 1970s with prices nearly doubling, and then the post-COVID era spending blitz in the last year of Trump and then the Biden $6 trillion spending spree with the CPI sprinting from 1.5% to 9.1%.
Coincidence? Maybe. But I doubt it.
The connection between government flab and the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar is obvious. In both cases the Washington spending blitz was funded by Federal Reserve money printing. The helicopter money caused prices to surge. (I still find it laughable that 11 Nobel prize-winning economists wrote in the New York Times in 2021: Don’t worry, the Biden multi-trillion-dollar spending spree won’t cause inflation.)
The avalanche of federal spending hasn’t stopped even though COVID ended more than three years ago. We are three months into the 2025 fiscal year and on pace to spend an all-time high $7 trillion and borrow $2 trillion. If we stay on this course, the federal budget could reach $10 trillion over the next decade.
This road to financial perdition cannot stand. It risks blowing up the Trump presidency.
Upon entering office, Trump should on day one call for a package of up to $500 billion of rescissions — money that the last Congress appropriated but has not been spent yet. Cancelling the green energy subsidies alone could save nearly $100 billion. Why are we still spending money on COVID?
We could save tens of billions by ending corporate welfare programs — such as the wheel barrels full of tax dollars thrown at companies like Intel in the CHIPS Act. The Elon Musk Department of Government Efficiency is already identifying low hanging fruit that needs to be cut from the tree.
Along with extending the Trump tax cut of 2017, this erasure of bloated federal spending is critical for economic revival and for reversing the income losses to the middle class under Biden.
This is especially urgent because the curse of inflation is NOT over. Since the Fed started cutting interest rates in October, commodity prices are up nearly 5% and the mortgage rates have again hit 7% — in part because the combination of cheap money and government expansion is a toxic economic brew — as history teaches us.
Nothing could suck the oxygen and excitement out of the new Trump presidency more than a resumption of inflation at the grocery store and the gas pump. Trump’s record-high approval rating will sink overnight if the cost of everything starts rising again.
Cutting spending won’t be easy. The resistance won’t just come from Bernie Sanders Democrats. Trump will have to convince lawmakers in his own party — many of whom are already defending green-new-deal pork projects in their districts.
This is why Trump should make the case in his inaugural address that downsizing government is the moral equivalent of war. Borrow a line from Nancy Reagan: just say no — to runaway government spending. Say yes to what Friedman titled his famous book: “Capitalism and Freedom.”
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. His new book, coauthored with Arthur Laffer, is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”
