Recognizing that voters are increasingly skeptical of extreme climate regulations, dark money groups have stepped in with millions of dollars to alter the conversation.
The goal of these groups, as reported in recent news, is to help climate activists “talk like humans” and present their ideas in a way that doesn’t alienate voters.
Essentially, these groups advise activists on how to sound less radical by softening the rhetoric and framing their climate agenda as more palatable and less divisive. But there’s an obvious catch: this is a messaging campaign, not a policy shift.
If you must teach someone to talk like a human, the message is probably not the problem — it’s the policy, isn’t it?
Beginning with the mythical “new ice age” predicted in the 1970s, the climate alarmists have tried for half a century now to convince us that humans are negatively impacting the climate and that the only solution is for us to diminish the very things — food, energy, and transportation, to name a few — that have brought progress not just to the United States but everywhere around the globe.
The problem is that folks just aren’t buying it, or at least aren’t buying the radical solutions proposed by far-left government officials, out-of-work politicians desperate to make a buck, and the NGOs and think tanks that provide financial backing to them all.
Now, since voters aren’t buying what they’re selling, they want dark money groups to help activists disguise their radical agenda by using softer language, subbing out phrases like “climate change” and “warming” to “extreme weather” and “overheating.”
It seems more than a little ironic that the same voices on the left who accuse energy companies of peddling “fake news” and “climate denialism” to protect their profits are now using a web of dark money to fund a communications strategy that relies on concealment and manipulation. Talk about hypocrisy.
Their problem, of course, lies in the reality that their policy “solutions” do not resonate with the public and do not deliver as advertised. Solutions that actually work and are truly affordable wouldn’t require these kinds of deceptive tactics to gain public support. But their approach is the furthest thing from in touch with what an endless numbers of pre-election surveys and exit polls showed is voters’ most pressing concern today — the economy.
Just look at the adverse economic consequences that came from President Joe Biden’s radical energy policies.
Within hours of assuming office, Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline, killing thousands of union jobs. He conducted a regulatory assault on energy companies, limited drilling permits and access, supplied nearly $500 billion in tax dollars to green energy initiatives, and pushed policies that made fossil fuel production more difficult and expensive. Gas prices spiked, and utility bills soared for millions of Americans, hitting the middle class especially hard.
And that’s not all. Of course, nearly every good purchased or consumed is shipped by trucks and trains which run on fossil fuels. Driving up the cost of fuels drives up the price of shipping, which, in turn, drives up the prices of the goods being shipped. That is exactly what Biden’s radical energy policies did. Add to that the fact that, even as fuel prices moderated in recent months, prices for consumer goods have remained stubbornly high, and it’s no wonder the Biden policies became so unpopular.
While the administration justified these policies as steps toward a cleaner, greener future, the main effect felt by average American families was a squeeze on their household budgets and a heightened sense of financial instability.
No amount of dark money will bring the climate alarm movement’s views into line with the mainstream, and no amount of softer language will allow them to change the conversation in a manner that convinces the public to give up their gasoline-powered cars and gas stoves.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the radical Biden policies and the needs of average Americans living out here in “flyover country.” Until they can address the true economic consequences of their climate agenda, they will continue to lose elections and legislative policy battles. And that’s welcome news for us all.
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 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.
The Republican congressional candidate linked to QAnon’s origins claimed during a debate on Wednesday that the Keystone Pipeline caused Russia to invade Ukraine. The candidate, Ron Watkins, became famous for his controversial online persona offering 2020 election fraud claims and commentary.
“We wouldn’t even be in Ukraine if President Biden did not shut down the Keystone Pipeline on the first day. Because now that that’s shut down, we have to get our oil, and we’re getting our oil from Russia and we’re getting all these problems through the Ukraine and that would not have happened if Biden didn’t shut down the pipeline,” said Watkins. “We’ve got all of this oil coming from Russia to the United States and they wanted a better route to bring the oil through.”
The Arizona PBS segment “Arizona Horizon” hosted the debate featuring Watkins as well as State Representative Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake) and Andy Yates, a “40 Under 40” Phoenix businessman and community leader.
Watkins’ remarks were prompted by host Ted Simons’ question to candidates whether they supported foreign aid to Ukraine. All three candidates supported sending foreign aid to Ukraine. Watkins then claimed that the Keystone Pipeline caused the war.
In response, Blackman criticized Watkins for daring to run for the U.S. Congress with ignorance of the major geopolitical conflict in Ukraine. He then offered Watkins a summarized lesson on the ongoing war.
“You’re trying to work on a national stage and you don’t even know why the war started in Ukraine? It had nothing to do with the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline caused the inflation and the increase in our gas prices,” explained Blackman. “The reason why I went into Ukraine is because Russia wanted Ukraine as they had them pre-World War II and Ukraine wanted to be part of NATO.”
Watkins conceded without further debate.
“He’s right. I made a mistake,” responded Watkins.
One of the most embarrassing gaffes I’ve seen in a debate, ever.
In the GOP primary debate for #AZ02, Q-Anon adjacent activist Ron Watkins blames the invasion of Ukraine on … The Keystone XL Pipeline?
Viral social media posts characterized Watkins’ rhetoric as gaffe-ridden and ill-prepared. The criticism began with his introductory statements.
“If you send me to D.C., you will know that I will be fighting against this evil, and I will make sure we drive them back, and I will make sure that your rights are — are kept,” said Watkins.
Ron’s biggest mistake: thinking his ability to con Trump supporters into believing he was a secret agent would somehow carry over into the real world.
But Ron has the charisma you’d expect from a guy who collects samurai swords & spends all day on 8chan.pic.twitter.com/r2E2IYbWOY
Watkins, Blackman, and Yates are three in a crowded race to represent the second congressional district currently held by incumbent Congressman Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ-01).
In the Republican primary, they’re up against Eli Crane, a veteran and small business owner of “Shark Tank”-famous company Bottle Breacher; Mark Deluzio, a diversified businessman and active local GOP and community leader; Steven Krystofiak, a farmer and small business owner; and John Moore, the mayor of Williams.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
