“These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate writers and editors are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.”

The New York Times op-ed, “Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore” (May 9, 2026) is yet another marker that the debate is widening over the economic and political feasibility of climate alarm and forced energy transformation. [1] Matthew Huber wrote:

For the past several months, Democratic elites have been debating how much to talk about climate change, if at all — in part because these new candidates have narrowed their focus to energy affordability to win back the working class. It is a striking shift from a few years ago, when many Democratic politicians thought the promise of a Green New Deal would build a coalition based on green jobs and fighting inequality.

“This is the fifth consecutive failed attempt…. UNEP warns the IPCC trust fund may run out before AR7 is even finished. What we are watching is … a slow-motion erosion of the institution that translates climate science into political accountability — and it is happening at the moment that science is most needed.” – Jozef Pecho, IPCC climate scientist (below)

There is trouble in IPCC-land where the next (Seventh) assessment, due out in late 2029 (COP 34), is behind schedule with uncertain prospects.[1] Chalk up another setback to the Big Problem of trying to control the climate via anti-CO2 policies.

Climate modeler Jozef Pecho, advertising himself as “predicting floods, protecting lives,” is concerned that the IPCC research-and-publication process is in trouble. “As a climate scientist whose work depends on IPCC assessments,” he reported, “I find what’s happening in Bangkok hard to watch.”…

Editor’s Note: Free-market energy advocate Todd M. Lindley is running for a board position at Anchorage-based Chugach Electric Association, the largest power distributor in the state.

On April 29, voting opens for Chugach Electric to elect two board members who will determine the future of the utility. A reset in the name of energy exceptionalism is needed.

Much of the policy adopted in recent years has favored organizations that invest in alternative energy. For an electric utility that serves more than 90,000 rate payers, this strategy is shortsighted and heavily reliant on regulation to even the playing field with traditional energy sources. This is not a sustainable path, nor does it provide an economy of scale to address risks associated with generation and transmission in Alaska. After voting opens, rate payers have a chance to accept the status quo and get more of the same or take a risk and make a change at the May 29 election.…

Ed. Note: Robert L. Bradley Jr’s opinion-page editorial, reprinted below, appeared in the Houston Chronicle last Sunday, April 12, 2026. Tomorrow’s post will explain the significance of Bradley’s op-ed given the Chronicle’s long-standing bias against fossil fuels.

CER­AWeek was in town last month, joined by cli­mate act­iv­ists who showed up to protest. The real­ity, however, is that cli­mate act­iv­ism is in retreat.

The so-called “energy trans­ition” is potholed by an unpre­ced­en­ted num­ber of solar bank­ruptcies, elec­tric-vehicle retreats, and cor­por­ate pull­backs from wind, hydro­gen, and car­boncap­ture projects.

A roadmap to phase out fossil fuels was defeated at the last United Nations con­fer­ence on cli­mate change, in line with a recent pre­dic­tion by the Inter­na­tional Energy Agency that oil demand will increase for dec­ades. Texas, for its part, pro­duced a record two bil­lion bar­rels last year.…