A middle-of-the-road legislative district in the Phoenix-metro area will be key to deciding the future political makeup of the Arizona State Legislature.
State Representative Seth Blattman, a Democrat, is running for reelection in Arizona Legislative District 9.
The Democrat lawmaker has been endorsed by liberal groups in his reelection bid, including National Organization for Women Arizona, AEA Fund for Public Education, the Progressive Turnout Project, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Jane Fonda Climate PAC, Save Our Schools Arizona, and Stonewall Democrats of Arizona.
Blattman’s support from the Fonda PAC may be one of the most concerning for voters researching his record and determining which direction they want to see for their district. On August 7, Blattman boasted of this endorsement, saying, “I am incredibly honored to announce the endorsement by the Jane Fonda Climate PAC! Their tireless efforts in combating climate change and advocating for sustainable policies are crucial for our planet’s future. Together, let’s create a healthier and sustainable Arizona for generations to come.”
I am incredibly honored to announce the endorsement by the Jane Fonda Climate PAC! Their tireless efforts in combating climate change and advocating for sustainable policies are crucial for our planet's future. Together, let's create a healthier and sustainable Arizona for… pic.twitter.com/qXZVxxZDJs
The mission of the PAC, however, is not as agreeable to a wide swath of constituents. On her website, Fonda writes, “Our planet is on fire and our leaders are failing us, so if we can’t change the minds of the people in power, we need to change the people in power. It is for that reason that I started Jane Fonda Climate PAC, which is laser-focused on one goal: Do what it takes to defeat fossil fuel supporters and elect climate champions at all levels of government.”
This PAC asserts that “major solutions are stopped cold: the Green New Deal, Build Back Better, clean energy investments, ending billions in tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry – all because of politicians backed by Big Oil.”
The Green New Deal pushed by the Jane Fonda Climate PAC is the same championed by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who is one of the most progressive lawmakers in the U.S. Congress. On Sanders’ presidential campaign website, he wrote about the deal, that “the climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country; it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future, but we must act immediately.”
Sanders added that as president he would “launch the decade of the Green New Deal, a ten-year, nationwide mobilization centered around justice and equity during which climate change will be factored into virtually every area of policy, from immigration to trade to foreign policy and beyond. Part of the details of the Green New Deal, according to Sanders, includes, “declaring climate change a national emergency, commit[ing] to reducing emissions throughout the world, [and] expanding the climate justice movement.”
Though Arizona has so far resisted an extreme move to the globalist agenda of the climate change lobby – thanks, in large part, to its previous Republican governors (Brewer and Ducey) and a Republican-led legislature – Blattman’s recent votes indicate that he might help usher in more of the Green New Deal policies should Democrats retake the legislature alongside Governor Katie Hobbs. He voted against HCR 2050, which would have “constitutionally prohibit[ed] Arizona or any political subdivision or public body of Arizona from restricting the manufacture, use or sale or a device based on the energy sources used to power the device.”
Additionally, Blattman voted against HCR 2018, which would have “prohibit[ed] this state and any city, town, county, municipal corporation or other political subdivision of this state from imposing a fee or tax based on vehicle miles traveled by a person in a motor vehicle or enacting any rule or law to monitor or limit the vehicle miles traveled by a person in a motor vehicle.”
Another of Blattman’s endorsements, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, also highlights its efforts to fight for the Green New Deal. The organization promotes itself as “a proud supporter of Elizabeth Warren since her first run for Senate and was the first national political organization to endorse her for president in the 2020 election.”
Warren, also one of the most liberal and progressive members of the U.S. Congress, presents herself as a top supporter of the Green New Deal. On her campaign website, Warren writes, “This is a crisis. We need bold, aggressive action. We need a Green New Deal – and we need it now. Elizabeth is proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Ed Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal resolution, which commits the United States to a ten-year mobilization to achieve domestic net-zero emissions by 2030. It provides the framework for an ambitious effort to transform our economy and save our planet.”
According to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Legislative District 9 is one of the most competitive in the entire state, with a 2.6% vote spread between Democrats and Republicans in the past nine statewide elections. In those contests, Democrats have emerged victorious five times, compared to four for Republicans.
Blattman will attempt to return to the Arizona House of Representatives alongside his seatmate, Lorena Austin. The two Democrats are facing off against Republicans Mary Ann Mendoza and Kylie Barber for the right to represent the district in its two slots.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The catalog of Vice President Kamala Harris’s history on energy policy is as thin as the listing of her accomplishments as President Joe Biden’s “Border Czar,” which is to say it is bereft of anything of real substance.
But the queen of word salads and newly minted presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has publicly endorsed many of her party’s most radical and disastrous energy-related ideas while serving in various elected offices — both in her energy basket-case home state of California and in Washington, D.C.
What Harris’s statements add up to is a potential disaster for America’s future energy security.
“The vice president’s approach to energy has been sophomorically dilettantish, grasping not only at shiny things such as AOC’sGreen New Deal but also at the straws Americans use to suck down the drinks they need when she starts talking like a Valley Girl,” Dan Kish, a senior research fellow at Institute for Energy Research, told me in an email this week. “To be honest, she’s no worse than many of her former Senate colleagues who have helped cheer on rising energy costs and the fleeing American jobs that accompany them. She doesn’t seem to understand the importance of reliable and affordable domestic energy, good skilled jobs or the national security implications of domestically produced energy, but maybe she will go back to school on the matter. No doubt on her electric school bus.”
During her first run for the Senate in 2016, Harris said she would love to expand her state’s economically ruinous cap-and-trade program to the national level. She also endorsed then-Gov. Jerry Brown’s harebrained scheme to ban plastic straws as a means of fighting climate change.
Tim Stewart, president of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, told me proposals like that one would lead during a Harris presidency to the “Californication of the entire U.S. energy policy.” “Historically,” he added, “the transition of power from a president to a vice president is designed to signal continuity. This won’t be the case, because a Harris administration will be much worse.”
But how much worse could it be than the set of Biden policies that Harris has roundly endorsed over the last three and a half years? How much worse can it be than having laughed through a presidency that:
As Biden’s successor for the nomination, Harris becomes the proud owner of all these policies, and more.
But Harris’ history shows it could indeed get worse. Much worse, in fact.
While mounting her own disastrous campaign for her party’s presidential nomination in 2020, Harris endorsed a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing, i.e., fracking. She later conformed that position to Biden’s own, slightly less insane view, but only after being picked as his running mate.
Consider also that while serving in the Senate in early 2019, Harris chose to sign up as a co-sponsor of the ultra-radical Green New Deal proposed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. It is not enough that the Biden regulators appeared to be using that nutty proposal and climate alarmism as the impetus to transform America’s entire economy and social structure: Harris favors enacting the whole thing.
As I have detailed here many times, every element of climate-alarm-based energy policies adopted by the Biden administration will inevitably lead the United State to become increasingly reliant on China for its energy needs, in the process decimating our country’s energy security. By her own words and actions, Harris has made it abundantly clear she wants to shift the process of getting there into a higher gear.
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.
People in states that have signed on to the EPA/ State Climate Action Plan program can no longer say, “it’s only happening in California” because California is the United Nations blueprint for the entire United States.
On September 20, 2023, the Biden administration met at the Sustainable Development Summit in New York with the goal of recommitting to the [United Nations] 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals—SDGs. A White House fact sheet stated, “The United States is committed to the full implementation of 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, at home and abroad. At their core, the SDGs seek to:
Expand economic opportunity – This means public-private partnerships, which is crony capitalism. In this scheme there are winners and losers, where profits are privatized, and losses are socialized on the backs of middle-class Americans.
Advance social justice – This means placating and advancing people based on their skin color. At its core it is discriminatory.
Promote good governance – This skirts our elected form of government and injects unelected special interest initiatives into our lives, where no one gets to vote.
Ensure no one is left behind – This means catering to protected classes and minorities in order to create “capacity building” for initiatives and redistributive wealth schemes. Under Diversity and Inclusion (DEI), these classes are awarded “equity” and “inclusion” based on their skin color.
The Biden administration hired people from California and put them into positions in all federal agencies relating to climate change in order to fulfill his Green New Deal plan. Therefore, the plan mirrors what California has done at the national level.
The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program are through cooperative grants, (Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, CPRG) which have “take it or leave it” terms and conditions. These agreements bind states and local jurisdictions into creating GHG inventories to reduce GHG emissions, which eventually wind their way into administrative law, constraining property and individual rights. These grants force United Nations style Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) that addresses the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which the Biden administration has committed to.
The EPA pitches climate action plans as voluntary. This is not true. Once a state agrees to take grant money, they sign on to mandatory elements in the grant terms and conditions contract — They are now in the United Nations/California club.
The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program is between the federal EPA, a “Partner” and unelected state agencies, boards, bodies, or commissions. Therefore, the entire process is being implemented without the consent of citizens and oversight of state legislatures – no one gets to vote. In essence, most states, including so-called conservative states, are selling out for bribes, aka grant money.
According to the EPA, states submitted Priority Climate Action Plans (PCAPs) under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program was hurried into place because there was concern that there could be a Republican change in the November 2024 election, which could jeopardize the program; hence, the name “priority” climate action plan in the first phase of the plan.
In 2023, under the first phase of the $5 billion program, the EPA made a total of $250 million in grants available to states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 80 MSAs, four territories, and over 200 Tribes and Tribal consortia to develop ambitious climate action plans that address greenhouse gas emissions. 45 states are now covered by a climate action plan. 5 states: Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, South Dakota and Wyoming decided not to participate.
The program is a two-phase federal grant program that allows the state to develop and implement ongoing community-driven projects that reduce ambient air pollution.
Phase I provided $250 million for noncompetitive planning grants, of which states were eligible for $3 million each to support the development of a climate action plan.
Phase II includes $4.6 billion in competitive implementation grants to execute the projects identified in the climate action plan.
The deadlines for submission of PCAPs are:
Priority Climate Action Plan – Creates an inventory of the state’s primary GHG generators. Due March 1, 2024 (states and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and due April 1, 2024 (tribes, tribal consortia, and territories)
Comprehensive Climate Action Plan – A plan to cut that pollution statewide. Due two years after planning grant award, or approximately mid-2025 (states and MSAs) and due at the close of the grant period (tribes, tribal consortia, and territories)
The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program seeks to create arbitrary greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in order to install unconstitutional hidden fees and taxes on hard working Americans. This is accomplished by doing a greenhouse gas inventory for carbon (CO2) and methane.
Once inventories for GHGs have been established, reduction goals can be set by States and local jurisdictions. Taxes and fees follow: GHG pricing mechanisms like cap and trade programs for energy producers; congestion pricing and vehicle mileage taxes for cars and trucks; mandatory retrofitting of commercial and existing residential homes to “green” building standards; zero emission vehicle requirements; increased gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil prices. For example, categories for emission controls include:
Transportation
Electricity Generation
Industry
Agriculture
Commercial and Residential Buildings
Waste and Materials Management
Wastewater
Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry
The EPA provided states with an outline template to follow in the development of their PCAPs called the, Priority Climate Action Plan Guidance: An Outline for States and MSAs. Therefore, the State PCAPs are very similar in their presentation. For example, PCAP lists required elements:
GHG Emissions Inventory,
Priority Measures and Reduction Estimates,
Benefits Analysis,
Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities (LIDAC) Benefits Analysis,
Review of Authority to Implement,
Intersection with Other Funding Availability, and
Coordination and Engagement.
State legislatures did not pass PCAPs. It all happened through interagency coordination: EPA and state agencies, which are under the control of Governors.
Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University for the Arizona Governor’s Office of Resiliency were the lead players in The Clean Arizona Plan: Priority Climate Action Plan State of Arizona. They coordinated the obligatory public outreach required by EPA grants, which included feedback from numerous special interest stakeholders who directly benefit from environmental initiatives, while hard working residents are relegated to answering simple questions on outcome-based online surveys — All of this is at the detriment to Arizona’s residents.
People need to contact their state’s Governor and condemn them for signing on and creating commissions and task forces while utilizing faux stakeholder consensus to justify existing PCAPs and Comprehensive Climate Action Plans already in the works. They need to notify their state legislatures that this is happening and ask them if they know about this EPA program.
Also, people need to remind elected officials of their constitutional oaths to protect individual property rights, as evidenced in a Paramount Network’s “Yellowstone” season one episode: Patriarch John Dutton is confronted by a group of Communist Chinese tourists who are trespassing on his land. He demands that they leave and when he explains that he owns the land, one trespasser states, “It is wrong for one man to own all this.” Dutton responds, “This is America, we don’t share land here!”
People in states that have signed on to the EPA/State Climate Action Plan program can no longer say, “it’s only happening in California” because California is the United Nations blueprint for the entire United States.
Dan Titus is affiliated with the American Coalition for Sustainable Communities (ACSC). Their mission is sustaining representative government; not governance, by collectivist-oriented unelected agencies and commissions.
A new survey conducted by Bain & Co. finds a rising percentage of energy executives willing to recognize the reality that the world will fail to achieve the “net zero by 2050” drop-dead goal pushed by the globalist community.
Bain & Co. surveyed more than 600 executives in oil and gas, utilities, chemicals, mining, and agribusiness during last November’s COP28 conference in Dubai and over the weeks following that event.
2050, of course, is the alarm-driven drop-dead date given to us by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the year we must achieve global net zero carbon emissions to prevent disastrous levels of global warming. But everyone knows that such alarmist projections have always been quite malleable and tend to shift to later dates in time once it becomes clear that the predicted disasters by certain dates aren’t actually coming about. You know, like all those alarms about the end of snow, the melting of the polar ice caps, Greenland’s ice shelf sliding off into the ocean, and Manhattan being inundated by rising sea levels. Al Gore kind of stuff.
Similarly, Bain & Co. finds that a rising percentage of energy executives now expect the ballyhooed “net zero” date to be pushed well past 2050, with fully 62% now anticipating it won’t be reached before 2060 or even later. That number is up from just 54% expressing the same opinion a year ago, and we can be sure it will keep rising in every subsequent year as the impossibility of reaching that 2050 goal becomes increasingly obvious to even the truest of true believers.
Here is how Bain puts it in its press release: “Clearly, the longer that executives on the front lines of the energy transition grapple with the challenges of putting decarbonization plans into action, the more sober they’re getting about the transition’s practical realities.”
Yes, pesky practical realities do have a way of intruding on the fantasy thinking that underlies so much of the energy transition’s prevailing narratives. In its next paragraph, Bain cites factors like rising interest rates and growing concerns about lack of “policy stability” in the US and other western democracies, i.e., democratic elections, as factors causing more and more of these executives to become skeptical about achieving the alarmist goals.
But weren’t those and other factors completely foreseeable to anyone who understands how the world really works? Of course, they were, but we must recognize that the key decisions related to this heavily subsidized transition are not being made by such people, but by politicians and bureaucrats. And therein lies the real trouble. Politicians look at impractical “solutions” like wind, solar, and electric vehicles and see shiny objects that they might be able to leverage with voters. Whether or not the solutions have any practical value is a secondary thought if they consider it at all.
We see this survey’s findings now reflected in remarks by industry executives at this week’s CERAWeek conference in Houston. CEOs from companies like Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Shell, and others stated their views that the world will require more and more oil, natural gas, and coal for decades to come, and discussed their plans to rededicate more of their capital budgets to their core businesses and less to pleasing ESG investors by throwing away money at unprofitable green ventures.
Reality is setting in, slowly but surely. When Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm tells an interviewer from E&E News that the Biden administration is trying to bring about “a managed transition,” as she did this week, more and more smart people in the energy space are coming to realize the threat that really represents.
Speaking to the CERAWeek audience Monday, Granholm claimed strong public support for the Biden Green New Deal agenda, saying, “Consumers are calling for change. Communities are calling for change. Investors are calling for change.” Again, Bain finds a rising percentage of executives actually in the business increasingly skeptical any of that is accurate.
What we are seeing here is a return to energy realism in the business community. That’s good news for everyone, whether the Biden administration and its alarmist supporters approve of it or not.
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 the past three years, the people of Arizona have been forced to deal with the fallout of a struggling economy, rising prices, and an inflation rate that, at one point, was the highest in the country. With this in mind, Republicans got to work, delivering the largest tax cut in state history and following that up with a budget that included tax rebates for Arizona families.
But Governor Katie Hobbs clearly has much different priorities when it comes to your hard-earned money. True to her 10-year history of pulverizing Arizona taxpayers, Hobbs announced during her State of the State address in January her desire to—you guessed it—massively grow the size of state government. And judging by the executive staff hiring spree that Hobbs is on as governor, it’s clear that this isn’t just empty rhetoric…
