Michael Bloomberg’s recent opinion piece attributing the devastating floods in Texas to “climate denialism” seems not only opportunistic but also misleading. While communities are still in the midst of searching for those they’ve lost and trying to rebuild their lives, Bloomberg appears to seize upon their misfortune as a chance to promote his own brand of alarmist rhetoric and centralized energy control.
Natural disasters are indeed tragic. They warrant serious analysis rather than cheap tactics meant to scare voters into giving up their energy freedom. Bloomberg’s core argument is that if politicians had simply backed more funding for wind and solar initiatives, lives could have been saved. This notion is idealistic, and he likely knows it.
He asserts that “the scientific evidence is clear” regarding climate change’s role in increasing flood occurrences. However, even the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which he cites selectively for his arguments, acknowledges that there is a “very low confidence” about detecting changes in extreme precipitation events within the short timeframes that lead to flash floods.
As Roger Pielke Jr. discusses in The Honest Broker, the situation is more complex than Bloomberg allows. Rather than representing “denialism,” it showcases the scientific nuances he seems to ignore. After all, complexity isn’t marketable.
Instead of addressing the intricacies, he resorts to emotionally charged language, suggesting floods serve as a “death penalty” enforced by those with opposing political views. He even uses “body count,” a term generally familiar to younger generations in a completely different context. In Bloomberg’s scenario, it might feel especially apt given the impact his policies have had on working families, raising their living costs significantly. Whether it’s through carbon taxes, mandates for renewables, or his opposition to affordable fuels, his strategies often leave everyday people shouldering the burden.
And that’s the grim tally: seniors forced to cut back on heating, households grappling with soaring electricity expenses, and small businesses struggling under regulatory pressures disguised as concern.
Bloomberg also seems to take issue with Texas lawmakers considering measures to hold renewable energy sources accountable for the financial burdens they place on the grid. Oddly, he praises Gov. Abbott for halting those efforts without recognizing Abbott’s 2021 decision directing the Public Utility Commission of Texas to “allocate reliability costs to generation resources that cannot guarantee their own availability, such as wind or solar power.”
When intermittent energy sources like wind and solar fail during severe weather, conventional power plants must be on standby, with the associated costs ultimately passed on to residents and small businesses.
Bloomberg seems to prefer these cost discrepancies remain obscured so he can continue claiming “cheap renewables” in his announcements. Yet Texans have learned that no amount of environmental virtue signaling ensures consistent power or affordable bills when the wind doesn’t blow.
He also expresses concern that the federal government isn’t investing more in energy subsidies linked to China, as if simply throwing money at favored industries solves every issue. However, Europe’s ongoing energy crisis illustrates the dangers of this mindset: rationing, blackouts, and a severe economic blow to working-class families.
Bloomberg’s proposed fixes would make Texas’s electrical grid weaker, increase energy costs, and make families more susceptible to future natural events.
Even if one were to accept every alarming prediction about rising global temperatures, there’s little evidence to suggest that subsidies for wind and solar energy prevent floods or hurricanes. At the core, these challenges revolve around infrastructure and readiness. Texas is making significant strides on its own, without needing guidance from billionaires in New York.
Texans are adept at uniting during crises. What we don’t require are opportunists taking advantage of tragedy to advance policies that enrich the climate elite.
It’s almost laughable to see Bloomberg admonishing leaders for not aligning with his agenda while ignoring the heavy costs his own climate strategies have imposed on low-income communities in New York and beyond.
True leadership means empowering communities with abundant, affordable, and reliable energy—the very essence of what has transformed Texas into a vital economic powerhouse.
If Bloomberg genuinely cared about resilience, he would advocate for investments in durable infrastructure, flood detection technologies, and transparent markets that reward reliability, rather than issuing blank checks for renewables that often disappoint in times of need.
Texans deserve a genuine dialogue, not a wave of moral panic. We merit recognition for our creativity and independence, rather than condescension from a billionaire who has long vilified the fuels essential for this country’s operation.
When Bloomberg next feels compelled to lecture Texas on disaster preparedness, he might want to reflect on his own actions. His climate agenda lacks a foundation in science or facts, focusing instead on an obsession with control. Texans understand better than to relinquish control over our energy, economy, and liberties to someone who remains unaffected by the fallout of their decisions.
