Climate Media’s Problem? Guess Again

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- June 18, 2026

“Climate alarmism and forced energy transformation is a losing argument now that the dust has settled. Exaggeration backfires, and here-and-now issues matter, not wasteful climate policies that do not and will not have any effect on climate for decades, if at all. As painful as it might be, it is time for Amy Westervelt (et al.) to check their premises. The Climate Industrial Complex is a beast just like, in her head, Big Oil.”

Amy Westervelt is in denial at DRILLED, a climate alarmist website. She gives four major reasons for “Climate Media’s Philanthropy Problem” (June 2, 2026).

“We’ve talked before about the massive bloodletting in climate media this year,” she begins:

even amidst the general demise of journalism, climate reporting stands out as having been hit particularly hard. The Washington Post and Reuters dismantled their climate teams, CBS did the same. Vox, The Los Angeles Times, and CNN all cut climate reporters in the recent past too. Last week, NPR joined the list, getting rid of its entire Climate Desk.

She then asks: “Why has climate been such a target?” She offers four theories (reproduced verbatim).

• It doesn’t deliver audience numbers – This really depends on how you slice the data and which stories you’re looking at, but if you wanted to find numbers that justify cuts, you could, and if you wanted to find numbers that justified keeping climate stories in the mix, you could find those too;
• “Nobody cares about climate” – This is only true if your definition of climate is detailed articles about atmospheric science. There are loads of surveys and polls out there that show people care a great deal about the things that climate action would deliver–clean air, consistent energy pricing, less dependence on a volatile commodity chief amongst them.
• The business model for media is broken – This is certainly true, but why is it climate reporting in particular that’s being cut entirely, when other verticals are losing some but not all reporters?
• Fear of the Trump administration – Certainly there’s a feeling out there that even saying the word “climate” or speaking negatively about oil companies could place one in Trump’s crosshairs, but good grief why bother even being a journalism outlet if you’re going to fold at the first sign of trouble?

Amy Westervelt then adds her own (fifth) theory that “philanthropy has particularly messed with the mechanics of climate journalism.” She explains:

… climate foundations that decided to dip a toe in the water of journalism over the past decade have done quite a bit of damage and are remarkably lacking in self awareness around it, probably for the same reason that they biffed it so hard in the first place: they never bothered to learn anything about journalism or media or even bring on consultants who know about such things to advise them.

Humm … but then she gets obtuse:

Instead, they took the same approach to journalism that their sworn enemies—oil majors—have: They focused on controlling the story and hijacking the influence of journalists and journalism to their own ends, as opposed to supporting an ecosystem that would benefit not only their own cause but democracy as a whole.

Get that? I didn’t.

How about this. Mega-money to create climate change as a top-tier issue has been in overdrive since the late 1980s. That is three-going-on-four decades. We have had Al Gore, the United Nations (IPCC), Greta, and monied foundations tooting the alarmist horn.

Predictions of ruin have come and gone. Meanwhile, energy systems designed (for the most part) by consumers has been co-opted by the inferiors—wind, solar, and batteries— to create a new set of economic and environmental problems. Big Green has looked the other way regarding the industrialization of the landscape in their quest to replace fossil fuels with dilute, intermittent, low-capacity renewables.

And the grassroots (those living near these projects) have increasingly said that enough is enough. The current number of delayed or cancelled “clean” energy projects is 1,278, according to Robert Bryce’s databank: 617 for wind, 508 for solar, 153 for batteries. And the trend, which began in earnest in 2015, has dramatically increased year-to-year.

The sum result? Losing politics for the cause. A recent New York Times article on the retreat from climate alarm by Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer is required reading for Amy Westervelt. “With voters worried about spiking gas prices and inflation, some of the party’s leaders argue that they should stop trying to throttle oil and gas….

It’s a rejection of the approach taken during the Biden administration, which treated climate change as an existential threat and tried to stop new drilling and pipelines…. A recent Economist/YouGov Poll showed that just 5 percent of Americans say climate change is their top voting issue. By contrast, 29 percent say their top priority is inflation and prices, and 13 percent cite jobs and the economy. A number of strategists have urged Democrats to stop talking about the issues that excite already-committed voters and broaden their appeal.

Climate alarmism and forced energy transformation is a losing argument now that the dust has settled. Exaggeration backfires, and here-and-now issues matter, not wasteful climate policies that do not and will not have any effect on climate for decades, if at all.

As painful as it might be, it is time for Amy Westervelt (et al.) to check their premises. The Climate Industrial Complex is a beast just like, in her head, Big Oil. Consumers matter. Taxpayers matter.

How to begin a rethink? It must begin with internally. As Milton and Rose Friedman once said:

The only person who can truly persuade you is yourself. You must turn the issues over in your mind at leisure, consider the many arguments, let them simmer, and after a long time turn your preferences into convictions. [1]

[1] Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose (1979), p. xii.