By Andrew Weiss
The EPA’s revocation of the 2009 endangerment finding shifts the burden of proof from federal agencies to state capitals. Governors who declared climate emergencies must now demonstrate with regional data that rising carbon dioxide (CO2) endangers their residents. Wisconsin cannot meet that burden.
In 2019, Wisconsin declared climate change a crisis requiring the state’s electricity to be carbon-free by 2050, citing worsening extreme weather as justification. Since then, the state has spent $6 billion on renewable infrastructure while residents pay 15% more for electricity than the Midwest average.
A new report by the Weiss Energy Policy Institute analyzed 130 years of Wisconsin climate data and found that as atmospheric CO2 rose 45%, Wisconsin experienced 63% fewer days over 90°F, heatwaves 71% shorter in duration, powerful tornadoes down 70%, and significant drought decline since 1894. This isn’t just absence of evidence, it’s negative correlation. As CO2increased, climate extremes decreased.
In addition to the improving climate, the report also notably found that rural Wisconsin’s average temperature has not changed since 1894. Urban areas, on the other hand, have warmed about 2.2°F since the late nineteenth century. The report finds that this urban warming is nearly entirely due to the Urban Heat Island effect from concrete and development, not CO2. In many measurable ways, Wisconsin’s climate has become more conducive to human flourishing over the past century.
Even if CO2 were causing harm, Wisconsin’s ability to adapt to climate change far surpasses its ability to influence it. The Badger State’s 2023 carbon emissions were 22% below its peak of 110 million metric tons in 2005. Despite its reduction, annual global emissions have increased by over 100 times Wisconsin’s entire annual emissions over the same period. In fact, in 2023, Wisconsin’s carbon emissions made up less than 0.25% of the global total.
While CO2 has not endangered residents of Wisconsin, the climate-based policies have. Residential electricity prices continue climbing even as household consumption falls. In fact, Xcel Energy and Alliant Energy have requested cumulative rate hikes approaching 19% over the next two years. Some in Waukesha County are already facing “dramatically higher” energy bills, double from just months earlier. Under Wisconsin’s current policies, this is sure to continue. In fact, Wisconsin is hurtling toward an energy crisis. The latest long term reliability assessment projects the state will enter “high-risk” territory for blackouts by 2028.
This economic burden stems from poor energy policies. Current leadership has forced coal plants into early retirement, blocked critical natural gas infrastructure, mandated carbon targets over grid reliability, vetoed consumer protections against appliance bans, and weaponized the permitting process to strangle traditional energy development.
For example, the state’s climate policies prevented a gas-fired plant that would have brought $1 million in annual tax revenue and 350 construction jobs to northern Wisconsin last year. Its initial permits expired while waiting for more permits.
In the face of unprecedented new energy demand, Wisconsin’s grid might have been able to absorb the new data centers and industrial growth if it weren’t already stressed by climate policy. But solar cannot replace coal megawatt-for-megawatt. In order to replace reliable coal with solar, while maintaining the same reliability, nearly twenty times the capacity must be installed. That means ratepayers pay to build and maintain thousands of acres of solar panels and pay to keep backup plants on standby for when those panels underperform.
Even overturning the carbon mandate won’t be enough to save the grid, because the current regulatory system was not built to accommodate surging industrial demand without punishing ratepayers. Wisconsin lawmakers need to save residents from footing the bill for data center infrastructure by utilizing free markets and private capital rather than heavy-handed subsidies.
This market-oriented solution for Wisconsin is called Consumer-Regulated Electricity (CRE). It allows privately financed utilities to generate and sell power directly to large customers through voluntary contracts, operating independent of the regulated grid. This creates a parallel pathway for new industrial demand, protecting residential ratepayers while giving Wisconsin a competitive advantage over other Midwest states. It attracts industrial capital without subsidies or forcing costs onto families.
The revoked endangerment finding forces a reckoning: will Wisconsin continue its expensive and dangerous energy transition, or will it examine the actual data? New evidence suggests the state should rescind its zero-carbon mandate, restore reliable baseload power to the legacy grid, and pass Consumer-Regulated Electricity legislation to let private capital serve new industrial demand without burdening ratepayers. Combined with removing carbon mandates from the legacy grid, these reforms position Wisconsin a bright energy future.
In the 21st century, affordable and reliable power separates flourishing societies from struggling ones. Wisconsin cannot prove CO2 harms, but its climate policies are already bringing on an energy crisis. Other states that built climate mandates on the endangerment finding should audit their climate data. The burden of proof has shifted to state capitals, and the evidence may not support the mandates.
Andrew Weiss is Founder Weiss Energy Policy Institute and a former Heritage Foundation research associate. All views are his own.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
The Changing Climate doesn’t harm people as much as bad Climate Policies do.
Same as COVID. It wasn’t COVID which trashed society and the economy, it was the unnecessary and panicked government reaction which did the damage.
There’s a common thread there, and in all government overreactions and panics.
I guess one million dead people in the US would disagree.
I guess those million will vote for Democrats in the next election!
I guess you don’t understand costs vs benefits, and you don’t want to consider how many people government’s panic killed. Because government is good, right?
How many? And I guess you don’t care about other peoples lifes if it’s for your benefit?
Beak it down fo me. How many died of Covid and how many died with covid, motorcycle accident, parachute didn’t open etc.
None of the gov’t actions did anything to stop the spread of covid. Masks didn’t, 6′ distancing didn’t, the vaccines didn’t. What they DID do was scare people and prevent them from working.
Mostly, governments missed the reality that it was frail elderly, immuno compromised, chronically ill and obese people who were exposed.
The rest of us, particularly the young, were not facing any existential threat from the virus.
The mRNA “vaccine” on the other hand . . .
A prominent meta-analysis from researchers at Johns Hopkins University (released in 2022 and still widely cited) concluded that lockdowns in Europe and the U.S. reduced COVID-19 mortality by only 0.2% on average. This study argued that while lockdowns had significant economic costs, they were “ill-founded” as a public health tool for reducing deaths.
So those 1 million people are still alive because of lockdowns and vaccines and mask mandates and and and…..
Sheesh.
All life, human and otherwise, is infected with a common disease. It is acquired at concept/germination and has 100% mortality.
It is called life.
Everyone of those 1million people would have died. The only difference is timing and circumstance, just like all the rest of us.
WORLD-WIDE, CO2 has not endangered humanity, however climate-based policies have
Endangerment, Badger State? We don’t have to show you any stinking endangerment!
story tip – US Supreme Court agrees to hear Oil Co’s appeal against 2018 Climate Suit
https://www.upstreamonline.com/environment/exxonmobil-climate-change-lawsuit-heading-to-us-supreme-court/2-1-1948080
It would be interesting to see the city attorneys identify which CO2 molecule did what and how they identified which producer is responsible.
New government regulation.
Each CO2 molecule has to be tagged with it’s data and place of origin.
Fun. That will involved billions of well paying green jobs, eh?
Governors who declared climate emergencies must now demonstrate with regional data that rising carbon dioxide (CO2) endangers their residents.
For Wisconsin to declare a climate emergency and then to lower its CO2 emissions in response makes about as much sense as for the little Norfolk UK town of Thetford to do the same thing. They both have about equal chances of having any effect on the global climate.
Thetford however did so declare in June 2024. But in July 2025 the chickens returned to roost:
A Norfolk council that agreed to spend £30,000 on tackling climate change has now been warned it is “bordering on insolvency”.
An internal audit found Thetford Town Council – which counts Terry Jermy, the local Labour MP, among its members – has “excessively low balances” and urged it to reassess its investments.
The council has been under fierce criticism from locals for several months over the handling of its finances after it unanimously voted to declare a “climate emergency” and commit £30,000 of its funds to combat the issue.
https://www.thetfordandbrandontimes.co.uk/news/25277833.thetford-town-council-hit-insolvency-risk-warning/
You notice that Thetford Council somehow forgot to mention how much effect its measures would have on the climate…. Along with forgetting to specify where the money would come from.
Classic cult behavior.
“excessively low balances”
Hoew can something be excessive and low at the same time?
Excessive does not mean quantity. It means magnitude.
excessive: adj.: more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.
Declaring carbon dioxide to be a “pollutant”, as some states and the federal government did at one point, will go down as the least logical economic decision since New Coke. The only way to surpass it would be to regulate H2O emissions. Carbon dioxide is exhaled by humans and all mammals, while all plant life survives on it- some strange “pollutant”, isn’t it? They could have said “soot” or something.
Or perhaps as devastatingly illogical as Bud Light going woke.
“devastatingly illogical”. Nice turn of phrase.
Don’t forget the Edsel.
Edsel wassn’t a bad political decision. Edsel was simply a bad design.
And shut down greenhouses and particularly space stations and submarines – CO2 levels in excess of 5000 ppm. Must be Endangered Levels.
“They could have said “soot” or something.”
Why do you think it is called “carbon emissions” etc. To make people think of soot, which was a principle cause of smog (smoke and fog).
By calling it “carbon emissions” the Trans-Reality Alarmist are purposefully brainwashing people to think CO2 and soot/smoke are the same.
Ever see one of those pictures where the plume of steam out of a smokestack appears black due to a “judicious” photographic angle?
“Pollutant” was morphed into “climate pollutant.”
Never understood have a statistical calculation, 30 year average of weather, could be polluted.
On a planet where co2 concentrations used to be 20%+ it is impossible to proof the difference between 0.03 and 0.04 % in terms of harms.
Needles to say that life would never exist in the first place on a planet where a difference of
0.0 1% of anything could have a massive impact
We can use Mars as starting point and try to find what impact it may make for the Mars climate if the co2 concentration went down from 95 % to 94.99%.
Noone would even dare to make an argument – but on planet earth 0.01% are being astroturfed into the ultimate defining point of mankind and nature.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 and it’s hot enough there to melt lead.
Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 and it’s cold enough there to snow dry ice.
The atmosphere on Earth is 0.04% CO2.
And one of the common denominators is distance from the Sun.
The other major determinants are atmospheric depth/mass and gravity.
And atmospheric DENSITY, not composition.
Goldilocks.
The “precautionary principle” is built on the absence of science. It’s application leads to the stagnation of even common sense actions.
Chicken Little syndrome!
The “Tragedy of the Commons” principle, as flawed as it is applies here, unfortunately. Basically, the idea is that if everyone thinks that “my contribution to a problem is small, therefor why should it matter whether I do anything about it or not”, then the threat will become realized. The same goes at a state level, and even at a national level. The logic behind the “tragedy of the commons” principle is actually sound, assuming that the threat is real. But aye, there’s the rub. Because the so-called “threat” is actually a fantasy, or hoax, or whatever you want to call it. It does not exist. And that is the only rational response you can make against the Tragedy of the Commons principle.
You’d think that this winter in New England would change the minds of some alarmists in this region- but I doubt it. They’re not saying much now but as soon as spring arrives and the first warmer than average day, they’ll be back at it.
Indeed, dogs everywhere are saying that this winter has been “ruff”.
But Joseph, the winter storms are just weather.
No, no, no, you infidel! The winter storms, which are no personified with names, and entirely due to climate change.
Dontchano.
/s
Unless they’re “bad” – then they’re “climate related.” 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
“climate related?” No. “Caused by climate change.”
The definitely are climate related in that they become part of the running 30 year average.l
Many of us have been declaring this for several years. Tmin is changing not Tmax. Longer growing seasons, warmer nights, warmer winters. All these are good things. More CO2, more sugar for plants to burn in growing!
Where exactly is the problem? Misapplied statistics and trending of time series.
I wish it were merely misapplied statistics. No, it is scientific malfeasance.
When it started it was to gain an understanding of climate both natural and anthorpogenic.
It then changed to calculate the temperature increase from increased in CO2 concentration.
This has been going on with an alarmism spanning half a century and we still have not seen any of the prognostications come true.
How Wisconsin reacts all depends on how much money the Globalists have given the state government to keep them in office.
Or how much they successfuly pillage from Government aid programs.
Here is another example of AI data centers being used as scapegoats for rising electricity prices caused by the nation’s transition into wind and solar backed by batteries:
The Data Center Scapegoat Led to Two Different Sacrificial Altars (Steve Haner, Bacon’s Rebellion, 2/24/2026)
“Virginia’s world-leading data center industry, once a source of economic pride to our Commonwealth, has become the scapegoat of the 2026 General Assembly. The State Senate and House of Delegates have built different altars for its sacrifice.
The Senate is about to vote to strip away the major sales and use tax exemption which has helped make Virginia the center of this burgeoning industry. This would raise the taxes they pay by more than $1 billion initially and then up to $2 billion annually, an infusion of cash the Senate will happily find ways to spend.”
In many states, legislation is being considered which would force new-build AI data centers to supply their own energy through use of behind-the-meter power generation. In Virginia, legislation is being considered which would ban AI data centers from using natural gas or diesel to fuel their behind-the-meter generation.
In Virginia, this would mean that new-build AI data centers could only use wind and solar, or nuclear, for their behind-the-meter generation, if they decided to build it.
Political opposition to building new AI data centers is spreading rapidly across the country. For those who oppose the further rise of a robust AI data center industry in the US, is there an argument to be made that these data centers can still cause the price of electricity to rise as a consequence of their ability to outbid consumer-oriented power utilities for access to limited supplies of power generation equipment?
Is the old media and democratic party gearing up to battle against young ladies using AI to transform their dorky prom date photo so it includes their favorite actor? They can’t be that self destructive.
Sure they can…but it really doesn’t matter anyways because they are so very screwed after this last election.
May all the data centers leave a Road Runner-like cloud of dust as they disappear from Virginia, red state bound.
Why would they want to stay in Centrist-cum-Communist Virginia which instantly moved to entrench Democrat control with hard left policies galore the instant Virginians were stupid enough to elect them.
Unfortunately, the underlying principle of this article is not true.
“Governors who declared climate emergencies must now demonstrate with regional data that rising carbon dioxide (CO2) endangers their residents.”
Instead of being required to face facts in their policies, the requirement is that they must convince voters to continue to support them.
History is replete with examples of politicians (many dictators got their power by convincing people to vote them into office) who got enough people to accept their statements as truth when there was no evidence that is was so.
Wisconsin, for example. People are spending days and dollars to keep violent criminals from being removed from their communities. They take actions with high risk of injury or arrest to keep people safe who they wouldn’t allow anywhere near their children if they were using anything even remotely approaching ‘common sense’ to determine their behavior.
On what grounds would ANYONE think there is hope that whatever is being used for ‘thought process’ would change now?
But their actions feel good.
My own benchmark for that was congressman Marty Meehan of Lowell Massachusetts. He campaigned saying he didn’t believe in career politicians occupying office … then remained in office for 15 years before transferring to a politically appointed job to replace Billy (famous criminal Whitey’s brother) Bulger as president of the UMass university system.
(Benchmark for what? The point was, the truth is not the point in politics, and in uniparty political states it is easily ignored)
The point is power and graft..
In the polls, yes, of course.
In the courts? Get the beer and popcorn. The show is about to begin.
Texas is another example of non-existent climate crisis. CO2 Coalition report is here:
https://co2coalition.org/publications/texas-and-climate-change-no-climate-crisis-in-the-lone-star-state/
My synopsis is:
https://rclutz.com/2025/08/21/no-climate-crisis-in-texas/
From the article: “In addition to the improving climate, the report also notably found that rural Wisconsin’s average temperature has not changed since 1894.”
We were just as warm in the 1880’s, as we are today. Wisconsin is one more example.
So, even though CO2 has increased since the 1880’s, it is no warmer today than then, which means that increased amounts of CO2 have had no noticeable effects on the Earth’s temperatures.
CO2 is nothing to worry about.
Technically a nit, but it means increased CO2 concentrations have had no effects on Wisconsin temperatures.
I know. CO2 is not the control knob and if it has any effect at all, it is immeasureable.
I read the headlines and the first para – just say if Demo n crats are in charge, that will do thank you.
But, but, but when trying to save the Earth from the human infestation, party politics must be set aside…. for the common good.
/s
Today’s Democrats are literally the “Agent Smiths” of our world. The enemies of humanity.
Good reference.
Atmospheric CO2 levels
· CO2 starvation for plants generally occurs at concentrations below 150–200 ppm, often termed the “line of death” for photosynthesis. While current atmospheric CO2 (approx. 420 ppm) is far from these starvation levels, it is considered low compared to geological history, leading some to argue that recent geological periods experienced “CO2 starvation”
CO2 levels in Submarines:
· Submarine levels of CO2 are intentionally maintained higher than surface levels (400-600 ppm), typically ranging between 2,000–5,000 ppm, with maximum allowable concentrations often set around 1% (10,000 ppm) for long-term (90-day) exposure.
CO2 levels in Greenhouses:
· Optimal levels of CO2 in greenhouses for maximum plant growth typically range from 800 to 1,200 ppm (parts per million), significantly higher than the atmospheric level of roughly 400 ppm. Supplementing in this range can increase yields by 40-100%.
CO2 levels at the International Space Station:
· CO2 levels on the International Space Station (ISS) are maintained significantly higher than on Earth, typically ranging between 3,000 and 6,500 ppm, or roughly 0.3% to 0.65%. This is far above the 0.04% concentration found on Earth and is managed to conserve energy.
“Kiss-of-LIFE,” 38,000 ppm.
“This economic burden stems from poor energy policies. Current leadership has forced coal plants into early retirement, blocked critical natural gas infrastructure, mandated carbon targets over grid reliability, vetoed consumer protections against appliance bans, and weaponized the permitting process to strangle traditional energy development.” ~A. Weiss
In conversations with people who believe that CO2 is a pollutant and raises average temps on Earth, I found that they now are bringing up “affordability” as a concern for voters. They now claim that tariffs are raising the cost of living, and something must be done about “affordability.”
I am so stunned by the human mind. Can it be that these voters actually “pivot” so easily with the direction of the wind, from one day to the next? Can it be that they cannot apply their own standards to their signature issue? The whole point is to solve global warming by raising the cost of energy and transportation.
All I do in those cases is say that the average nat’l price of gasoline right now is 2/gal., while in our state it is more than twice that. And that our property taxes are confiscatory to the point of making homeowners feel insecure about keeping their home for another 5 years at this rate.
I mean face it, it’s equity stripping.
One of Madmani’s in NYC advisors is on record as saying that home ownership is a form of white supremacy. She has also declared support of government ownership of everything.
CO2 was created by God when the earth was first formed. CO2 is the “food” God created for these plants so they can survive and grow and produce fruit and flowers.
Talk to any major greenhouse grower and ask them if they supply the plants they are growing, if they provide to these plants more CO2 than is in the atmosphere. Ask them how many more and bigger flowers their roses are giving them. Ask the vegetable, tomato and cucumber and pepper growers how many more tons of product they get yearly because they enrich their plants with additional CO2?
Maybe what these States should be doing is building large commercial greenhouses near the utilities power plants, and have the State and Utility host the combusted exhaust from these natural gas power plants to these greenhouse growers.
Then have the environmental groups come around with their monitoring equipment to measure for CO2 and check to determine where all the heat energy went. Natural gas is made up of 18% water. A lot of the growers are using this collected condensate and adding nutrients to it and then adding this water to the greenhouse irrigation system. It’s all about the plants and production.
Remember how years ago these environmentalists were all about planting trees? Why? Someone told them that trees absorb CO2. So plant more trees then.
CO2 is not bad. CO2 is not harmful. All those employees working in the greenhouses picking flowers and vegetables do not look any worse for working in those increased CO2 levels.
This story tip needs to be told to everyone. It’s called education 101 on CO2.
You are correct.
Just a comment, rarely seen.
Greenhouses are environmental control systems.
Earth is not a greenhouse.
Per all definitions, climate is defined as the weather in a given area for 30 years.
So Wisconsin politicians have declared that weather has caused worsening extreme weather.
Wisconsin politicians have never declared that cheese causes worsening cheese, but I’m sure that with their affinity for promoting circular logic, it wont be too long before they do.
Origninaly, “micro climate” was the 30 years in a given locale or region or area.
That was hijacked and redefined to allow averaging of everything to come up with a “global climate.”
The timing of that change was the advent of satellites meassurements.
So we have the answer: 42.
What is needed now is the question.
This is internally contradictory and this myth must end.
There is no amount of solar (or wind, for that matter) that can replace coal, period. When it isn’t working (i.e., more often than it does) it produces nothing. That is no “replacement” for dispatchable, 24/7 generation.
But, but, but the sun is always shining somewhere!
/s