Oil and Gaslighting Gavin Newsom Rides Again

Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to make sure US military bases have fuel for their jets and their boats

Another oil and gaslighting press release from California Governor Gavin Newsom was sent Friday at 5:00pm, claiming that oil prices have gone up because of President Trump.

Enjoy Newsom’s toothless claims in Fridays’s press dump:

“Governor Newsom exposes Trump’s Sable offshore pipeline lie: one month of oil, prices have only gone up.”

“California court affirms state law while Trump and Wright continue to lie to the American people on behalf of Big Oil.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“What you need to know: A California judge today ruled that the Trump administration’s illegal order on the Sable offshore oil pipeline does not cancel out previous court rulings prohibiting the pipeline from restarting without meeting legal and safety requirements. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright promised Americans that forcing the illegal restart of this California offshore pipeline would help lower gas prices nationwide. That’s a lie. This week marks one month of oil flow and gas prices are over $1 more per gallon in red states and blue states, regardless of whether they pump oil or have refineries.”

Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge Donna D. Geck, ruled Friday, that the Trump administration’s March 2026 order—issued by Energy Secretary Chris Wright under the Defense Production Act – does not override or nullify her existing preliminary injunction against restarting the Sable Offshore Corp.’s onshore pipelines.

Sable is expected to appeal the State Court Judge Geck’s ruling.

The headline from Governor Newsom’s office frames the restart of the Sable Offshore Santa Ynez Unit pipeline system off Santa Barbara as a “lie” by the Trump administration, claiming it was promised to lower oil and gas prices but has instead coincided with rising prices after one month.

The Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp. operates the Santa Ynez Unit in federal waters offshore California.

As the Globe reported in March, “President Donald J. Trump has the authority to restart an oil pipeline project off the Santa Barbara coast by invoking the Defense Production Act, the Department of Justice said in a legal opinion, to override California laws blocking the restart of offshore oil production and the Santa Ynez Pipeline System.”

The administration’s goals are to boost domestic supply, reduce reliance on foreign oil – especially for California refineries and West Coast military needs – and address supply risks from state-level restrictions.

The Executive Order, Adjusting Certain Delegations Under the Defense Production Act,” specifies the “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”

Sable’s pipelines can ship up to 200,000 barrels per day of oil and it had accumulated 540,000 barrels of processed crude oil in storage after it restarted one of the Santa Ynez platforms last year, Reuters reported.

Sable reported resuming flow in mid-March 2026 and targeting sales of 50,000 barrels per day by early April, with potential to ramp higher. This volume represents a modest addition: roughly 3% of California’s refining capacity or a tiny fraction (0.5% or less) of total U.S. daily crude production (which hit record levels above 13 million barrels per day in 2025), Reuters said.

“Despite the pipeline’s restart, California is still seeking ways to block the project.”

Of course Democrats are seeking ways to block the project.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation even “demanded that Sable immediately remove a portion of its pipeline crossing Gaviota State Park in Santa Barbara County.”

That didn’t go so well.

Sable sued the state parks department requesting declaratory relief to confirm its rights under the Defense Production Act, and the company is pursuing all financing options, including federal credit support, it said in a statement.

This is what California Democrats do. They can’t build anything, they can’t improve anything, they can’t deliver services to the public, so they tear down.

As the Globe has reported, California Governor Gavin Newsom is destroying the state’s oil and gas industry, and it appears to be deliberate. Newsom is presiding over perhaps the largest collapse of the oil industry, refinery operations and gasoline production in U.S. history.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

California lawmakers push bill to make oil and gas companies pay for climate-driven disasters

California lawmakers on Thursday introduced legislation aimed at holding large fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-fueled disasters, in a bid to shift the burden from homeowners, ratepayers, and insurers to corporations whose operations advocates say have contributed to climate change.

Democratic State Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco unveiled SB 982, the Affordable Insurance and Recovery (AIR) Act, alongside disaster survivors and environmental advocates. Wiener cited recent climate-fueled catastrophes, including the Altadena Fire and the historic 2024 San Diego floods, as examples of how California families are paying the price for corporate activity.

“Californians should not have to continue to pay the full cost of climate-driven disasters given the role that fossil fuel corporations have played in getting us here,” Wiener said.

Click here to read the full article in the NY Post

The bill would allow the California Attorney General to sue companies on behalf of victims to recover disaster-related costs. It would then put that money into a Climate Disaster Fund to help with victims and additional lawsuits.

Advocates said the legislation is intended to help homeowners and insurers struggling to cover claims, noting that even FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, is under financial stress and considering major premium increases.

“Ratepayers are paying, insurance companies are paying, the government is paying; the only group not paying is big oil,” said Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters.

Creasman added, “Insurance companies are leaving the state because of the cost of the cost of recovery here after a disaster is too great and doesn’t pencil out for them.”

SB 982 targets companies that have generated at least $500 million in revenue over the past three years and are or were involved in the fossil fuel industry in California. Wiener cited major players such as Shell, Chevron, and Exxon, while noting that any company meeting the size threshold could be held liable.

Disaster survivors at Thursday’s press event shared personal accounts of property and financial loss.

Click here to read the full article in ABC 10

Lawmakers send Newsom a high-stakes energy overhaul tied to wildfires, utilities and oil

On Nov. 4, Californians will decide whether the state should gerrymander its congressional districts. Sign up for key updates on the special election.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Gov. Gavin Newsom closed out the legislative year with one of the most sweeping overhauls of California’s energy and climate policies in decades — a package that could give him a presidential debate-stage talking point on rising energy costs as the Democratic Party shifts its focus to affordability.

The six-bill deal — passed Saturday after lawmakers extended their session by an extra day because of last-minute dealmaking — was sold as a way to ease gas prices and soaring electricity bills while preserving the state’s signature climate programs.

Ratepayers are expected to get some relief through measures to cut the cost of building transmission lines, and an expanded cap-and-trade energy credit aimed at blunting rising energy bills. They also will get some protection from utilities hiking rates based on the cost of wildfire-proofing their infrastructure, such as by putting power lines underground. But they’ll also continue paying $9 billion over the next decade into a fund to compensate wildfire victims.

The package of legislation now heads to the governor’s desk for his signature. 

Newsom and his allies, who negotiated the package in the final days of the legislative session, said the state needed to allow more permits to drill oil to head off more refinery shutdowns that could send gas prices soaring.

Critics said the biggest winners of the maneuvering were the oil industry and the state’s major utilities. Oil drilling measures advanced in Kern County after refiners threatened to shutter plants. Utilities gained sweeping new wildfire liability protections and the ability to join a regional power market — a step critics warned could tether California to fossil-fuel states at a time when the Trump administration is moving to roll back clean energy.

Michael Wara, a Stanford legal scholar focused on energy policy, called it “astonishing” that lawmakers managed to pass so many major bills at once, including the two-thirds vote to reauthorize cap-and-trade. California is making steady progress in shifting from fossil fuels to renewables, even as wildfires complicate the transition, and while the measures were imperfect, they were necessary, he said.

“I’ve been a part, over the last decade, of getting individual tweaks done in each of these areas — but the idea that we would get them all done at once, on time, when we needed to, is astonishing to me,” Wara said. “Are the bills perfect? No, from my perspective they’re not perfect, but they are all material improvements over the status quo.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Newsom embraces Big Oil — for now — to curb potential gas supply shortages

As California decarbonizes, refineries are shuttering fast. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration wants to slow that down.

The expected closures of an oil refinery in the Bay Area and another in Southern California has Gov. Gavin Newsom, a global leader on climate action, acting uncharacteristically friendly with the fossil fuel industry.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Newsom, a Democrat, wants to prevent gasoline shortages and higher prices at the pump by extracting more oil and investing in infrastructure at ports to import more refined gasoline from abroad. If the plans come to fruition, more tankers would dock at Bay Area ports to unload fossil fuels, and the government may encourage the construction of more pipelines and storage tanks to bring gasoline to market.

Meanwhile, his administration may delay its splashy plans to strictly regulate refineries and limit the profits that they earn. The California Energy Commission, a key policy agency made up of Newsom’s appointees, will consider on August 13 pausing the implementation of a 2023 law that authorized it to set a cap on profits and penalize refiners for exceeding the limit. Newsom had championed that law.

The upshot? An about-face for Newsom. His office did not respond to a comment request.

Only months ago, the governor was pushing laws to rein in refineries, which are major sources of pollution and greenhouse gases. He has blamed fossil fuel firms for the state’s notoriously high gas prices and accused them of price gouging.

“They’re screwing you,” Newsom said in October. “They’ve been screwing you for years and years and years. There’s no other way to put it.”

Then, two oil refineries announced plans to shutter, including the Valero plant in Benicia, citing the state’s environmental regulations and market uncertainty. The two refineries make up 17% of California’s refinery capacity. Even in the hotly debated realm of California climate politics, there’s broad agreement that the loss of these refineries will lead to shortages of gasoline and yet more pain at the pump. The exact impact on gas prices is unclear; a recent study by UC Davis economists estimated that gas could rise $1.21 per gallon by August 2026.

Click here to read the full article in the Mercury News

After Battering Oil/Gas Industry, Gavin Newsom Wants California Oil Refineries to Stay Open

Gov. Newsom signed a package of ‘sweeping legislation’ in September 2022 to achieve statewide carbon neutrality


Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

In 1988, the state of California only imported about 4.5% of all the oil that we consumed in our state. By 2020 we were importing over 70%.

California Democrats’ war on the oil and gas industry is working, but not for the people. In his latest about-face, pivot, flip-flop, or career-saving move, Governor Gavin Newsom Thursday directed state officials to increase efforts to guarantee reliable fuel supplies for the nation’s biggest auto market, prompting oil companies to blame state policies for difficult business conditions and high pump prices, Reuters reported.

Gov. Newsom has been agitating for some time against “Big Oil” and their “windfall profits,” but always leaves out his and Democrats’ important role in escalating oil and gas prices in California through regulations, surcharges, “clean-air” and “low carbon” programs, cap and trade and more schemes.

Remember this climate grift:

Gov. Newsom signed a package of “sweeping legislation” in September 2022 to achieve statewide carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, by establishing an 85% emissions reduction target, capping oil wells, slowing oil and gas permitting, making it impossible to increase refining capacity, and entirely phasing out oil and gas starting in two years.

That “sweeping set of laws” Newsom touted was 40 new climate change bills regulating California businesses and its people.

In another blow to California’s oil and gas industry, and the state’s fuel supply, Valero Energy Corporation announced last week it will shut down its Benicia Refinery in April 2026.

This latest hit comes after Chevron Oil Company announced in August their corporate relocation to Houston Texas from the Bay Area, and Phillips 66 announced that its Los Angeles refinery will shut down by October 2025.

Add to that devastating news, Senate Bill 1137, which took effect on June 27, 2024, bans the construction of new oil wells and the maintenance or repair of existing wells within 3,200 feet of loosely defined “sensitive receptors,” potentially threatening to shut down energy resource infrastructure statewide.

Add to that, California Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill in February to hold “Big Oil” responsible for natural disasters in California. You read that right – Senator Wiener is blaming the oil and gas industry for natural disasters, or disasters that should have been mitigated by the State of California – like wildfires. Sen. Wiener’s Senate Bill 222 would allow the state FAIR Plan, insurance companies, and individuals to sue oil and gas companies for wildfire damages.

Sponsoring Wiener’s bill is the the Rockefeller-backed Center for Climate Integrity, a Washington DC non-profit, which brags that they are “Exposing Big Oil’s Lies & Demanding Accountability.”

The oil and gas industry has taken one political hit after another with California’s Democrat Governor and Democrat supermajority in the State Legislature.

Gov. Newsom claims that the state’s highest-in-the-nation gas taxes and prices are not what cause dramatically spiking gas/oil prices but because of price gouging by the oil industry. In May 2024, Newsom even signed a gas price gouging law into place.

Gavin Newsom must be worried about his future if he suddenly cares about refinery output.

More from Reuters:

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

‘Drill, baby, drill!’ and climate change denial: California braces for a Trump environment

As a candidate, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly professed his love of clean air and water, but he also dismissed climate change as a hoax, railed against zero emission electric vehicles and expressed contempt for the environmental regulations that seek to protect California rivers and estuaries.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

Now, as Trump prepares to return to the White House, state officials and environmental groups are bracing for the same sweeping environmental policy changes that characterized his first administration, as well as others that have been proposed more recently by former Trump aides and allies.

Although Trump has sought to distance himself from the conservative Project 2025 game plan, many of its energy and environment proposals mirror Trump’s contention that the government’s focus on climate change has shackled the oil industry and damaged the nation’s economy and must come to an end.

Equipped with a Republican-controlled Senate, a likely majority-Republican Congress, and a Supreme Court that has shown hostility toward environmental laws and regulations, the potential for a Trump administration to profoundly alter or gut existing polices is considerable.

However, experts say the road isn’t entirely clear: The lower courts can still slow down and stop some of the new administration’s proposed changes, while states, such as California, can continue to be leaders on the world stage in areas such as green technology, climate policy and scientific research.

Unfortunately, they say, the timing couldn’t be worse.

On climate change and governance:

“We do not have four years to not do things, let alone go backwards,” said Ken Alex, director at the Center for Law Energy and Environment at UC Berkeley. “We are in a very, very precarious moment.”

The goals outlined in Project 2025 point to a “dismantling of government and government regulation” and a “fossil fuel-based agenda.”

Alex said the biggest setback is the call to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which includes the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Weather Service (which Project 2025 suggests should be privatized), and the National Hurricane Center — as well as the plan to downsize a variety of environmental or environmental-adjacent agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior.

“It’s a parade of horribles,” Alex said.

Brad Udall, a climate scientist at Colorado State University, said that “at best, Trump’s win means a four-year hiatus on US domestic and international leadership on greenhouse gas reduction efforts. … Unfortunately, the impacts are likely to last much longer than just four years given the way long-term investments and planning work in the energy sector.”

He said Trump’s win could lead to the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, which he described as “the single most important legislation to date anywhere in the world to reduce greenhouse gases.”

He said the act has been wildly successful in spurring investment and innovation. Ironically, much of the funding has gone to red, or majority Republican, states — which may help to preserve it.

Water:

Trump is certain to clash with California leaders over water.

He has said the resource is “horribly mismanaged” in California and has promised to turn on a massive “faucet” for farmers and cities — partly by weakening environmental protections for such species as the Delta smelt.

But such efforts, while popular among Trump supporters in rural farming communities, could encounter substantial obstacles.

“We’ve heard numerous statements from the incoming president that California has more water than they know what to do with, and that they’re wasting water,” said Mark Gold, director of water scarcity solutions for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I’m concerned and anxious about what the Trump administration could mean for water, and especially biodiversity protection in aquatic habitats.”

Click here to read the full article in LA Times

Gov. Newsom’s Venezuela-Like Price Control Proposal on Oil Industry

Desperate for attention, Gov. Newsom threatening special legislative session on his oil and gas controls

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s California Energy Commission regulators announced earlier this month proposed government controls of the petroleum industry, ostensibly in order to combat future energy price surges. This followed Chevron Oil company’s announcement that it will be moving its headquarters to Houston Texas from San Ramon California.

With the California Legislature set to adjourn Friday, Gov. Newsom is threatening to call a special session if lawmakers don’t pass his Venezuela-Like price controls proposal of the oil and gas industry – unless lawmakers pass his latest proposal to control California’s petroleum industry.

Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Riverside) took exception to Newsom’s threat:

No mention in Newsom’s proposal of California’s highest-in-the-nation gas taxes…

The Western States Petroleum Association explains how devastating Newsom’s proposal would be:

“There are bad regulations, and then there are regulations so detrimental that industry experts, the California Energy Commission, and anyone with a basic understanding of economics can clearly see the harm they will cause consumers. Governor Newsom’s refinery supply mandate will create artificial shortages of fuel in California, Arizona and Nevada by forcing refiners to withhold fuels from the market. Lawmakers who vote for this mandate will be voting to increase gas costs for their constituents.”

Newsom’s prosed control of the oil and gas industry does the opposite of what he claims.

Appearing desperate for attention after being shoved aside by the DNC, Gov. Newsom had been sort of behaving more like a governor than ever before, seemingly now concerned about the explosion of homeless encampments, even assisting cleanup of camps around the state. But that was merely a head fake – Rumors report that Newsom has been seething after being snubbed and is looking for a get-even event.

Taking over California’s petroleum industry might get Newsom the attention he seeks, as he outlines below:

“What you need to know: Price spikes on consumers are profit spikes for oil companies, and they’re overwhelmingly caused by refiners not backfilling supplies when they go down for maintenance.”

The Western States Petroleum Association vehemently disagrees:

“California already faces a de facto production ban, forcing more than 75 percent of the crude our state uses to be shipped in from overseas. Additionally, upcoming ‘at berth’ regulations, set to take effect in just a few months, may exacerbate this problem by restricting shipping and causing significant declines in the supply of crude oil and other transportation fuel products needed to meet the state’s energy demands. WSPA has repeatedly warned the administration and lawmakers about the cumulative effects of these supply-limiting policies, but to no avail.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Technically, California won’t delay an oil well protection law — but Newsom axes funding to enforce it

Gavin Newsom’s late session proposal to extend deadlines — by more than four years in one case — for oil companies to  comply with a new law fizzled and died late this week.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

But environmental groups didn’t have a chance to cheer a rare victory over California’s fossil fuel interests: When the governor’s administration withdrew the proposal, it also eliminated from the budget bill any funding to implement the 2022 law — a law that prohibits new oil operations within 3,200 feet of homes and schools and calls for a robust monitoring system to track leaks and air and water quality.

State agencies maintained that the deadlines for implementing many of the law’s requirements were never practical and did not allow sufficient time to hire staff to oversee a new state program, or to understand and put in place the complex monitoring and testing regimes to ensure public health.

While some of the law’s elements are already in place — no new oil or gas wells are now permitted within the buffer zone, for example — leak detection protocols and other critical monitoring elements have yet to be determined.

Environmental groups say there’s an inherent contradiction to the governor’s actions. Officials needed more time to prepare and put in place a suite of sophisticated regulations that were new to them. But, by holding back the funding that would have allowed regulators to hire staff and build expertise, it makes it more difficult for agencies to carry out the law, ensuring more delays.

The original law’s author, Lena A. Gonzalez, a Democrat from Long Beach, has expressed frustration at the delay and the toll it will take on communities affected by California oil wells, noting that if state agencies are understaffed, there’s been “plenty of time to figure this out.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

California Energy Commission Proposes State Takeover Of Oil Refineries

‘Californians Deserve a Strategic Transition Away from Petroleum Transportation Fuels’

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

Just as Chevron Oil company announced that it is moving its headquarters to Houston Texas from San Ramon California, California Energy Commission regulators announced proposed government controls of the petroleum industry, ostensibly in order to combat future energy price surges, according to a report released August 1, 2024 by the CEC.

Despite California’s radical and very accelerated green agenda which does not include oil and gas as fuels, the CEC fully expects some of California’s nine oil refineries to be shuttered due to falling demand, which would give the remaining refineries increased pricing power and raise the possibility of a surge in gas prices, the study said.

But the study had other interesting conclusions:

Like most product prices, gasoline prices should ideally obey the laws of supply and demand.

However, supply dynamics in California’s transportation fuels market differ from many other markets in the United States. Despite being directly geographically connected to other states, California’s relatively isolated transportation fuels market makes it essentially a fuel island. In addition, the critical need to address the state’s unique air quality challenges means that the state must require a unique fuel specification that differs from the rest of the nation. Related to the isolated market, the state’s opaque spot market appears to have an outsized influence on prices in a way that does not align with supply or demand fundamentals.

These factors have led to several challenges for the stability of transportation fuel prices. For example, in the last two years (2022 and 2023), California had two gasoline price spikes in September and October.

“Spikes were not seen in regions outside of the western part of the United States.”

Do my eyes deceive me?

As Ed Ring reported in the Globe in January, “Despite being a sunny, solar friendly state, with ample areas blessed with high wind, California still derives 50 percent of its total energy from crude oil. Another 34 percent comes from natural gas. This fossil fuel total for California energy, 84 percent, actually exceeds the world average for 2022, which – including coal – came in at 82 percent.”

Gov. Newsom claims that the state’s highest-in-the-nation gas taxes and prices are not what led to dramatically spiking gas/oil prices but because of price gouging by the oil industry. In May, Newsom even signed a gas price gouging law into place.

The California Energy Commission disagrees with the governor, showing that gas price spikes occurred in the last few years because of refineries temporally going out of commission because not enough oil was getting to them. The CEC also said that lower prices this year were caused by many factors, including a cut in industry costs and profits, lower crude oil costs, and in how much environmental programs are getting from the industry, the Globe reported. Prices could even be lower, but as the CEC noted, the only thing that went up was the gas tax itself.

The newest CEC study reports “gasoline remains California’s dominant transportation fuel, and demand is not especially responsive to short-term price spikes.”

They further explain:

Gasoline demand is expected to continue a downward trend as demand for ZEVs increases and other climate-friendly strategies unfold. However, the CEC projects that gasoline demand will remain above two hundred thousand barrels per day (TBD) at least through 2035 if not longer. Even under the most aggressive scenario transition to ZEVs, millions of petroleum-fueled vehicles are anticipated to remain on California’s roads and highways beyond 2035.

These vehicles will need fuel to operate, and many of the vehicles may be owned by lower income individuals and families, making it even more compelling to identify ways to ensure an affordable, reliable, equitable, and safe supply.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

CALIFORNIA AG SUES BIG OIL

“Don’t lie, don’t deceive, don’t hide from the public clean energy pathways forward, and don’t hide from the public the existential threat that fossil fuels created in terms of climate change and extreme weather and damage to the environment.”
— California Attorney General Rob Bonta, PBS interview, Sept. 20, 2023

Bonta’s statement exposes the inherent and fatal flaw in his case. You can’t lie when you’re telling the truth. And the truth is as explicit as it is heretical: The theory that fossil fuel creates an immediate and existential threat in terms of “climate change and extreme weather” is a theory. It is an increasingly discredited theory. It is not “settled science,” and it never was.

Millions of people doubt the climate crisis narrative, and the fact that nearly all of them are afraid to say so testifies to the campaign of intimidation, censorship, brainwashing, and litigation that is condoned and often coordinated by one of the most powerful and pernicious coalitions of special interests in the history of the world. Publicly challenging the “consensus” often spells career and corporate suicide. And that, too, ought to be obvious.

The policies being put in place to supposedly mitigate the impact of CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses” are enabling a massive transfer of wealth and centralization of public and corporate power. By micromanaging energy use via “climate action plans” and “carbon accounting,” literally every human activity becomes highly regulated and more expensive. This reduces the middle class to subsistence, enlarges the dependent class, drives small and mid-sized companies out of business, allows monopolistic companies to consolidate entire industries, and expands the size and reach of government to grotesque proportions. It erases liberties taken for granted in America for over two centuries, including unrestricted mobility and a reasonable chance to afford a home.

Thanks to environmentalists pressuring the state into imposing ridiculous “net zero” building codes, along with cordoning off cities to prevent the far less expensive option of building on open land, the average home in California costs over $728,000. Add to that the most expensive total costs for natural gas, electricity, gasoline, and water in the United States, and the average Californian is lucky to have anything left over for clothing, groceries, or health care. Want to keep your kids out of the public schools? Good luck. On average that will cost another $16,000 per year in California, per child. And it is not tax deductible.

All of these costs are elevated either indirectly or explicitly thanks to environmentalist regulatory excess. The state has plenty of land for homes, trees for lumber, abundant reserves of gas and oil, and amazingly productive farmland. But in every one of these areas — the foundations of prosperity — environmentalist-inspired rules have restricted supply and raised costs. The only economic interests that have benefitted are monopolists.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, for all his self-righteousness and phony demeanor, is not stupid. He understands the consequences of what he’s doing. But Bonta is a puppet. He is owned by public-sector unions, California’s most powerful special interest, and nothing will expand unionized government more than climate mitigation — more regulations meant to cope with the “climate crisis” means bureaucracy, more agencies, more fees, and more taxes.

In Bonta’s run for attorney general in 2022, he collected the maximum permissible contribution, $16,200, from 33 entities. Every one of them was a union-funded small-contributor committee. Every single one. Of his largest contributors, the first 52 were unions, nearly all of them public-sector unions.

Public-sector unions’ control of Bonta is reflected in his actions as attorney general. Does he use the power of his office to make a dent in rampant crime in California counties where district attorneys won’t prosecute criminals? Does he challenge court rulings that make it impossible to compel homeless addicts and alcoholics to move into safe shelters? Does he investigate the corruption that drives a homeless industrial complex of public bureaucrats, “nonprofits,” and politically connected developers who have snarfed their way through over $20 billion in taxpayer money in just the last four years, with billions more on the way, merely to make California’s homeless population bigger than ever? Has Bonta supported repeal of Prop. 47, which downgraded property and drug crimes in California? No. No. No. And no. Because if the answer to any of those questions were yes, Bonta would be defying the agenda of unionized government and their quasi-private-sector cronies.

Bonta has, however, sued a courageous school board that — gasp — decided to require parental notification if their children yield to transexual propaganda, online peer pressure, and classroom indoctrination to start “identifying” as members of the opposite sex. Because that’s none of a parent’s business, right? Let the government raise your child. More school psychologists and counselors, more administrators, more unionized public-sector employees, more union dues, more union power.

Which brings us back to Bonta’s case against Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP. Let’s not kid ourselves here. This is extortion. It might be perfectly legal, but it is extortion, following what is becoming a well-traveled path of “climate change litigation.” Sadly, the oil companies will probably refrain from fighting this as aggressively as they ought. The reality, which with aggressive counsel would come out in discovery, is quite likely that through the years, most oil company executives believed, with evidence, that fossil fuel would not cause extreme climate change or extreme weather.

Fossil fuel is not playing a decisive role in affecting climate, the climate is not rapidly changing in ways to which we cannot readily adapt, gradual warming will probably cause on balance more good than harm, fossil fuel has done far more to uplift humanity than to harm humanity — including generating the wealth we’ve needed to protect the environment from genuine pollution — and, even today, we are still nowhere near ready to replace fossil fuel with new energy technologies.

Why doesn’t Rob Bonta sue the five biggest environmental advocacy groups in California for their public misinformation campaigns, political lobbying and litigation that demonized loggers, ranchers, and private property owners, preventing them from performing the logging, grazing, mechanical thinning, and controlled burns that up until the 1990s kept California’s forests from becoming dangerously overgrown? Why doesn’t Rob Bonta, along with Gov. Gavin Newsom, publicly acknowledge that environmentalist pressure groups regulated sensible forest management out of existence in California, that a century of fire suppression, along with two or three decades of management neglect, have left tree density in California’s forests at five to 10 times what is historically normal, and that is the reason they’re dried out, unhealthy, and burn like hell?

For that matter, why doesn’t Rob Bonta sue EV manufacturers, and the environmentalist pressure groups that demand rapid and exclusive adoption of EVs? Hasn’t this led to a catastrophic uptick in mining around the world, in nations where environmental and labor standards are nonexistent? Perhaps Rob Bonta should spend some quality time picking cobalt out of toxic slurry in West Africa before he pretends more EVs will somehow save the planet.

All of this is willful ignorance. Bonta told a fawning PBS interviewer on Sept. 20 that if the fossil fuel companies had been, according to him, paragons of honesty back in the 1950s, “choices would have been different, like doubling down and investing on clean energy and phasing out of fossil fuel.” This is absurd. Even now, the materials science that may someday result in sustainable, affordable, practical batteries for EVs is still in its infancy.

Bonta is posturing. He might be forgiven for believing the alleged consensus on climate change, simply because everyone he’s surrounded himself with, including all his donors, are telling him the same story. But Bonta cannot be excused for his blithe indifference to the benefit of fossil fuel, the wealth and broadly distributed prosperity it has given people everywhere, the fact that it still provides more than 80 percent of global energy, the complete lack of scalable alternatives to fossil fuel in past decades, and the extraordinary technological challenges we still face to successfully replace it.

Click here to read the full article in the California Policy Center