For years, those of us who work with real-world energy systems—and examine the underlying climate data rather than press releases, have warned that the gap between climate rhetoric and energy reality was becoming too wide to sustain. Eventually, reality wins. Gravity always triumphs over wishful thinking, and energy policy is no exception.
Lately, we’re finally seeing the signs that the world is waking up.
Across Europe and beyond, costly and politically crafted “climate transition” schemes are faltering under their own weight. The United Kingdom delayed its ban on gasoline and diesel vehicles because voters simply weren’t buying what government planners were selling—literally or figuratively. Germany was forced to walk back its heat-pump mandate after discovering, shockingly, that citizens couldn’t afford it and the grid couldn’t handle it. Several countries have slashed EV subsidies as demand slows, costs rise, and used EV values plummet like a stone tossed from a cliff.
Even long-time climate-narrative amplifiers are tapping the brakes. Bill Gates recently acknowledged that climate change “is not the end of civilization,” and that apocalyptic messaging distracts from more important global challenges. Elon Musk, once the unofficial mascot of the green transition, has been equally blunt: the world “will need oil and gas for a long time.” When the high priests of tech begin admitting physical and economic limits, the storyline is clearly shifting.
And that shift isn’t limited to Europe. In America, national climate policy is entering a course correction of its own. President Trump has made it clear that energy reliability—not climate slogans—will guide federal policy. His stated plans to unwind costly regulatory overreach, prioritize domestic energy production, and revisit unrealistic net-zero mandates have resonated with Americans tired of paying for policies that fail to deliver results. Whether one agrees with Trump or not, one thing is undeniable: Washington’s climate agenda is no longer operating on autopilot. It is being challenged, debated, and most importantly, re-grounded in economic and engineering reality.
Meanwhile, California, ground zero for climate policy theater, shows us what happens when ideology outruns reality.
Feckless Gov. Gavin Newsom is now scrambling to distance himself from the consequences of his own anti-oil crusade. After years spent vilifying the petroleum industry, imposing punitive regulations, and treating refineries as unwanted relics, the predictable has finally happened: two major refineries are shutting down. Valero’s Benicia refinery, one of the state’s most important, will close this April. With it goes a significant portion of California’s gasoline supply.
Make no mistake, California’s fuel market is uniquely fragile. Thanks to its special boutique fuel blends, limited refinery capacity, and a political climate that actively discourages upgrades or new construction, the system has no slack. Remove even one major refinery and the price shocks ripple instantly through the market. Remove two, and Californians could be staring at gasoline above $6 a gallon and possibly higher once summer blends roll out.
When that happens, don’t be surprised if someone starts printing gas-pump stickers of Newsom pointing at the price display saying, “I did that!” Because, frankly, he did. The governor can blame “greedy oil companies” all day long, but rhetoric can’t conceal the simple truth that when you make it politically toxic to operate essential energy infrastructure, that infrastructure eventually disappears.
This isn’t a complicated economic model; it’s basic supply and demand. Reduce supply while ever-higher demand occurs, and prices rise. Californians will feel it directly in their wallets, even if the elitist political class pretends otherwise.
There’s a broader lesson here, one that extends far beyond gas prices. Climate policy in California, and much of the country, has been built on oversimplified narratives and overconfident predictions. Claims that catastrophe is imminent, that extreme weather is “unprecedented,” and that fossil fuels can be eliminated rapidly without sacrifice simply don’t hold up under scrutiny.
As a meteorologist who has spent more than two decades examining climate trends and energy policy, I’ve watched climate science become overstated and the uncertainties downplayed. Climate models that fail to match real-world observations are treated as prophecy. Natural climate variability—documented for centuries—is effectively dismissed. Policies are crafted around political timelines rather than physical ones.
Thankfully, more people are beginning to ask questions. They’re looking beyond slogans like “existential threat” or “climate emergency” and asking whether the evidence supports the rhetoric. Many are discovering, sometimes with great surprise, that the world is not spiraling into climate chaos, and that humanity is more resilient, adaptive, and technologically capable than the doomsday narrative admits.
For those genuinely interested in examining the evidence for themselves, I recommend the new edition of Climate at a Glance, which lays out key climate topics—wildfires, hurricanes, sea level, tornadoes, drought, and more, in short, easy-to-read summaries grounded in actual data rather than speculative modeling. If you’re willing to look at the numbers with an open mind, you may find that the “climate disaster” simply isn’t there.
California and the nation face real environmental and energy challenges. But they won’t be solved by chasing political fantasies or clinging to apocalyptic messaging. They’ll be solved by acknowledging reality: reliable energy is essential, the transition away from fossil fuels will take far longer than activists claim, and policies rooted in fear rather than evidence inevitably backfire.
The sooner our leaders accept that, the sooner we can stop lurching from one self-inflicted crisis to another and start building an energy future grounded not in ideology, but in reality.
Anthony Watts awatts@heartland.org is a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at The Heartland Institute.