Bill Gates' Dramatic Change on Carbon Neutrality

Prediction of Climate Catastrophe Loses Some of Its Strongest Advocates
Author: Kevin Stocklin, The Epoch Times, 10/28/2025

‘People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future,’ Bill Gates said in a hotly debated op-ed.

Tech billionaire Bill Gates’s recent blog post stating that the “doomsday view” of environmental and social catastrophe from global warming is wrong appears to mark a significant shift in the debate over climate change. While reiterating the orthodoxy that climate change will have “serious consequences” and will hurt poor people the most, Gates goes on to say that “it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future,” he said.
Written as a message to attendees of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Brazil, which begins on Nov. 10, Gates’s op-ed states that the biggest problems the world faces are poverty and disease, not rising temperatures. This contrasts with his previous statements on the subject, including his 2021 book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” in which he says climate change is one of humanity’s greatest challenges and predicts that it could cause more deaths than the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed millions of people worldwide.

Similarly, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres declared in 2022 that all nations must end their reliance on fossil fuels “before climate catastrophe closes in on us all.”

Gates joins others who are stepping back from dire predictions about rising temperatures attributed to the burning of oil, gas, and coal.  Ted Nordhaus, founder of the climate-focused Breakthrough Institute, wrote in 2007, “If we continue to burn as much coal and oil as we’ve been burning, the heating of the earth will cause the sea levels to rise and the Amazon to collapse, and, according to scenarios commissioned by the Pentagon, will trigger a series of wars over the basic resources like food and water.” In an August blog post, Nordhaus said, “I no longer believe this hyperbole. Yes, the world will continue to warm as long as we keep burning fossil fuels. And sea levels will rise. ... But the rest of it? Not so much.”

What has changed? 
Critics of the claims that the climate changes as a result of human action and that the changes constitute an urgent existential crisis say that the most dire predictions from climate change models—the escalation of “extreme weather,” the flooding of Pacific island nations and coastal cities because of rising sea levels, the loss of coral reefs, and the loss of arctic sea ice—appear to be overstated. While climate change activists continue to maintain that their predictions are largely correct, the scientific debate on global warming has become more nuanced, upending the view that there was a scientific consensus regarding climate catastrophe. 

“The media, until recently, has had a stranglehold on what gets put out there, and most of the public have only heard extreme alarmist scenarios of climate and planetary doom,” Greg Wrightstone, executive director of the CO2 Coalition, which has challenged the so-called consensus regarding climate change, told The Epoch Times. “We’ve been saying all along that once the dam breaks—and hopefully it’s breaking now—we will be able to get the truth in front of not just the American people, but the world.”

A July report by the Department of Energy, authored by a working group of five independent experts in physical science, economics, climate science, and academic research, concluded that warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies may be misdirected. Additionally, the report finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays,” the report reads.
Coinciding with the release of that report, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said: “The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told—relentlessly—that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat.”
This reflected a shift in the debate over climate change, in which the benefits of fossil fuel energy and carbon dioxide were taken into account, as well as the potential harm from rising temperatures. “By almost every metric we look at, Earth’s ecosystems are thriving and prospering,” Wrightstone said. “It’s quite obvious that there are huge benefits that are due to climate change—longer growing seasons, crop productivity is outpacing population growth year after year, extreme weather-related deaths have dropped more than 90 percent since 1900, deserts are shrinking, and forests are expanding.” 

A 2024 report by Fred Pearce published by Yale School of the Environment stated that “despite warnings that climate change would create widespread desertification, many drylands are getting greener because of increased CO2 in the air—a trend that recent studies indicate will continue.” However, Pearce also notes the downside to this, namely that “vegetation may soak up scarce water supplies.” 

Flagstaff First Addresses Wildfire & Flood Crisis

Nearly 68,000 acres of forest have been destroyed in the Flagstaff area since 2010

The results of two exhaustive studies on Wildfire and Flooding threats to the west side of the San Francisco Peaks were recently presented to the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.  The two-part presentation by J.E. Fuller Hydrology and Northern Arizona University addressed both the physical and economic impacts of devastating wildfires and subsequent flooding in the Upper Rio De Flag Watershed.  Their conclusion – Flooding could impact 2000 structures and inflict  $2.8 billion in damage and lost wages following a major wildfire.    

It is this daunting threat that motivates the grassroots community group, Flagstaff First.  Almost a year ago, several flood-impacted residents of Flagstaff came together seeking ways to improve city preparedness for the ongoing threat of wildfires and flooding that have repeatedly devastated the east, west, and center of Flagstaff and Coconino County.  

To transform city fire and flood planning from reactive to proactive, Flagstaff First submitted a citizen petition that is now being considered by the City Council.  The petition states:

This petition requests the City Council add Wildfire, Flooding, and Drought to the current Priorities listed in the Carbon Neutrality Plan (CNP).  These three are the most direct environmental threats identified by a Flagstaff-specific climate vulnerability assessment and highlighted in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan on pages 17 and 18.  Include in the CNP specific goals and strategies for addressing Prevention, Detection, and Suppression of Wildfire; Mitigation of Flooding; and Preparation for Drought.  

The most frequent response from those reading the petition has been, “You mean wildfire, flooding, and drought are not top priorities in the CNP?”  The short answer is, they used to be, but they aren’t now.  Back in 2018, a Flagstaff-specific study concluded that wildfire, flooding, and drought are Flagstaff’s greatest climate change threats.  Recognizing these threats, the original Climate Action and Adaptation Plan presented a balanced program of Carbon Neutrality and Climate Adaptation.  Adaptation deals with the actions we can take locally to reduce the impact of climate change.  

Flagstaff’s only Climate Action plan today is the Carbon Neutrality Plan (CNP).  As the name suggests, this plan focuses almost exclusively on reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.  Wildfire, Flooding, and Drought are not top priorities in the CNP.  These threats are imminent and catastrophic.  A proactive and comprehensive climate adaptation plan must be restored to the CNP.  
Adding wildfire, flooding, and drought back into the plan may seem like common sense, but there is opposition to this idea.  Here are some of the objections and Flagstaff First’s reply.

The CNP already prioritizes Wildfire, Flooding, and Drought…
Not really.  Of the CNP's 162 pages only nine pages are devoted to a single climate adaptation topic, Forest Health.  It is listed in a subheading under Priority Four: Our Commitments.  This single Climate Adaptation project, although critically important, isn’t the comprehensive integrated program Flagstaff so desperately needs. 
Wildfire, flooding, and drought are priorities of multiple, current implementation projects…
This statement is true.   Numerous multi-million-dollar wildfire, flood, and drought projects are planned or underway.  However, these essential climate adaptation programs are not included in the CNP.   Ignoring the critical priorities (Wildfire, Flooding, and Drought) in the city’s only climate action plan invites additional disaster.   
Why change the Carbon Neutrality Plan?  It’s fine just the way it is.

Actually, the CNP has been revised numerous times.  It was during the 2022 revision that “Forest Health” was added to the plan.  But the CNP is still devoted almost exclusively to carbon neutrality.  By including wildfire flooding and drought as a top priority, the Flagstaff First petition will restore a reasonable balance between climate mitigation and climate adaptation that was originally in the 2018 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
What Flagstaff First shares with those who disagree with their petition is the goal of ensuring Flagstaff’s sustainability.  We know from the County’s recent studies that Flagstaff remains under imminent threat of both catastrophic wildfire and flooding.   Only by including those essential components of Climate Adaptation, Wildfire, Flooding & Drought, as top priorities in the CNP, can the City carry out its true mission of protecting the community through comprehensive Climate Action.

Will Carbon Neutrality Save Flagstaff?

The Flagstaff City Council declined to approve a Flagstaff First petition requesting that wildfire, flooding, and drought be made top priorities in the city's only climate action plan, the  Carbon Neutrality Plan.  The plan “to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030” was adopted by the Council in June of 2021 in response to their 2020 Climate Emergency declaration.
What exactly is carbon neutrality and what can it achieve? For Flagstaff, the goal of carbon neutrality means reducing the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere (emit) until it equals the amount of CO2 we can remove (sequester) from the atmosphere.  When what we emit equals what we sequester, we’ve achieved “Carbon Neutrality”.  
How do we get there?  The city’s Sustainability Department has a $600,000,000 plan to convert homes, businesses, and vehicles to electric heat and power.  What CO2 emissions remain must be compensated for by sequestration.  This can be accomplished biologically by trees and plants absorbing CO2 and by purchasing machines that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Some believe achieving carbon neutrality is the only way to protect the city from climate change.  As Stefan Sommer of the Northern Arizona Climate Change Alliance has said, “…reducing our (carbon) footprint is the only way we can reduce the risk of ongoing and future climate disasters.”  But is this statement true? Will achieving carbon neutrality in Flagstaff, or the entire United States, change the trajectory of global warming and prevent climate disasters?  
For carbon neutrality to impact climate change, a unified global effort is required, especially from the nations most responsible for CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, this coordinated action is not happening.  Over half of world CO2 emissions are now produced by four countries, China, U.S., India, and Russia with China alone responsible for 30% of world emissions.  U.S. production is less than 14% of the global total.  The other three collectively contribute more than 50% of the total.  Worse yet, China and India continue to build coal-fired power plants growing their emissions yearly.  Of the four, only the U.S. is reducing emissions.  A dramatic change in policy by the other three is required to make progress on global Carbon Neutrality.  
Results from last December’s Global Climate Summit in Dubai (COP28) effectively decoupled Carbon Neutrality from Climate Change.  China, India, Russia, and a host of other countries refused to sign any commitment to reduce CO2 emissions.   The tragedy of Carbon Neutrality is that success requires across-the-board participation by the major polluters.  The graph clearly shows that while the U.S. is making significant progress, our efforts are overwhelmed by the increasing pollution of other countries.  Bottom line – until China and India make dramatic policy changes, no amount of emission reductions or sequestration in Flagstaff or for the entire U.S. will significantly change the trajectory of global warming.

Carbon Neutrality’s Unintended Consequences

The City of Flagstaff has one climate action plan, the Carbon Neutrality Plan (CNP).   This $600,000,000 plan aims to make Flagstaff  “carbon neutral” by 2030.  To achieve carbon neutrality, the city’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must be reduced by 857,039 metric tons annually (CNP p. 46).  As the CNP states on page 5, achieving this goal will require “…drastic shifts in how we heat and power our buildings, travel from place to place, and manage our waste.”   The plan strives to make Flagstaff an all-electric city by eliminating natural gas and wood for heat and replacing them with electric heat pumps and appliances.  Electric cars, trucks, buses, bikes, and scooters will be our modes of transportation.  Of course, these changes will substantially increase the city's electricity demand.   
Simultaneously, dramatic changes in electric power production are underway.  Major portions of our reliable and diverse energy mix are being deactivated.  APS is engaged in a massive program to replace dependable sources (coal and natural gas) with variable and vulnerable renewable power (wind and solar}.  The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.  Variable solar only works during daylight hours and days are shortest in winter when Flagstaff needs power the most.   Solar is also most vulnerable in winter.  Snow-covered panels produce no electricity and overcast skies can drastically reduce output.  Worst of all hail has destroyed entire solar fields.  According to the APS timetables, renewables (wind and solar) could become the dominant energy sources for Flagstaff by 2035.
These dramatic transformations in our electric infrastructure place Flagstaff residents in a dangerous energy squeeze.  Our greatest demand for electricity is in winter when renewable energy production is at a minimum.  Cold temperatures will drive up demand for running heat pumps and charging vehicles.  Shorter days, overcast skies, and snow-covered solar panels dramatically reduce renewable energy output.  The deadly combination of low power production and high winter demand puts Flagstaff at risk for extended power outages.  Outages in all-electric homes during frigid winter temperatures will create life-threatening conditions, especially for the elderly.  Remember, one of the CNP goals is to eliminate natural gas and wood stoves, heat sources that could be used as backup during outages.  
Sweden has a similar winter climate to ours.  The country has been a world leader in developing wind and solar power.  Experience though, has led them to recognize the existential threat of renewables in cold weather.  Their parliament recently abandoned green energy, opting instead to increase nuclear power.
Another threat posed by transitioning to wind and solar power is China’s dominance over solar panel and battery manufacturing and supply chains.  Batteries are required to power electric vehicles and to stabilize the variability of solar and wind power production.   Cobalt is an essential element in lithium battery production.  China controls 73% of the world’s cobalt refining, 77% of battery cathode production, and 92% of anode production.  Similarly, China is responsible for the bulk of solar panel manufacturing.  Polysilicon is the basic material in solar cells.  79% is produced in China along with 97% of wafers and 85% of solar cells.  The U.S. then is dependent on China for renewable energy.
We should not be so naïve as to think China will not use control of these resources as a weapon against us, especially as our dependence on renewables grows.  Manipulation is already happening in other areas.  China also controls the supply chains for gallium and germanium, essential components in all microchip electronic devices.  The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is restricting the export of these raw materials as the chip war with the U.S. heats up.
All raw materials for building and operating coal and natural gas power plants are contained within the U.S. and not vulnerable to manipulation by China.  By abandoning these power sources and replacing them with wind and solar, our country is sacrificing energy independence and giving control of electric energy production to China.

For more unbiased factual information about Climate Change, watch: Climate The Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU

Flagstaff’s Heatpump Mandate

A key objective of Flagstaff's Carbon Neutrality Plan (CNP), Regional Plan, and LASS+CAP is the transformation of all building heating to electric heat pumps.   The purpose of this goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by eliminating the use of natural gas for heat.   The massive conversion has been promoted as a clean, efficient, and economical improvement with no downside.  Unfortunately, the conversion of gas furnaces to heat pumps is anything but benign.  

The fatal flaw of electric-only heating is that it lacks backup sources of heat during power outages. A home without heat can be life-threatening, especially in Flagstaff’s harsh winter climate. Power outages can occur for extended periods during sub-freezing winter temperatures.  Homes without heat, particularly during frigid snowstorms, pose a special threat to the elderly and infirm.  

As Arizona’s power grid transitions to green energy (wind and solar), we must anticipate that the frequency and duration of power outages will increase.  Regions farther along in the move to wind and solar are already experiencing frequent power failures.  The Big Island of Hawaii and Southern California endure regular brownouts and blackouts.  Most recently, Spain and Portugal, whose power sources are over half renewable, suffered a total grid collapse.   

Wind and solar energy are inherently variable and unreliable.  The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow.  For electric power to be dependable, it must include a base source of steady, consistent power like that provided by coal, gas, and nuclear.  As the percentage of green energy in Arizona’s grid increases, reliability will decrease.  Those who say effective secondary systems are being used to level out green power variability were disappointed recently when the world's most extensive backup battery system in Moss Landing, California, failed and was destroyed by fire last January.

Transitioning from gas furnaces to heat pumps is also very expensive.  Although operating costs may be lower, installation costs are much higher.  These costs raise the price of new homes.  Conversion of existing homes can cost tens of thousands.  All these additional expenses work directly against improving Flagstaff’s housing shortage by increasing the purchase price of a home.

Finally, worldwide atmospheric data clearly show that the trillions of dollars spent so far to reduce CO2 emissions have had zero impact on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  Without reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, no slowing of global warming can occur.

Denmark Rethinks Nuclear Ban

Recent blackouts in Spain and Portugal highlight the need for reliable base power as Nordic countries rethink nuclear energy policies.
After four decades of Denmark’s ban on nuclear power, the country is now considering reversing its anti-atomic stance. And that move may be part of a big change in how electricity gets generated in Europe. 

The Danes took note of the massive power outage last month that cut off electricity for the whole of Spain and neighboring Portugal plus some of southern France. The problem was that there was no reliable base power such as nuclear energy running on the grid at the time. Instead, those countries had to rely on frequently unstable renewable energy, such as solar and wind. 

Yet when the blackout arrived, Spain’s Prime Minister categorically ruled out an overreliance on solar and other renewable energy as a reason for the grid crashing. Still increasing numbers of people don’t see it that way.
"Without nuclear, net-zero is impossible," Daniel Lacalle chief economist at Madrid-based investment company Tressis, told FOX Business. That’s because renewable energy such as solar or wind is not reliable enough to provide consistent energy.

All electricity grids need to have a so-called base-power that can be relied on, experts say. Historically, the base has been coal, natural gas and nuclear. But of those three, only nuclear produces carbon-free electricity. 
Meanwhile, much of Europe’s population has been terrified of nuclear power for decades with anti-nuclear activists citing the disasters at Chernobyl, Ukraine and Fukushima, Japan. But Lacalle says there’s some good news for nuclear now. 

Denmark isn’t the only Nordic country warming to nuclear power. In March, Sweden said the EU needs to push for nuclear power to ensure there is energy security. Likewise, Norway was already toying with the idea of small modular nuclear reactors. The Left in Europe always mentions the Nordic countries for everything, Lacalle says. "The fact that Denmark, Norway and Sweden are deciding to change policies, that is huge in terms of sentiment," he told FOX Business.

Near the end of the last decade, leading politicians in Europe began to embrace what’s commonly known as net-zero. It was an effort that refers to a change in energy use that results in having zero carbon emissions on a net basis. The prevailing view by many of Europe’s elites is that this reduction in carbon use will help slow warming of the earth.

In 2017, Sweden committed to achieve Net Zero carbon emissions by 2045. In 2019, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and France committed to net-zero. In 2021, Germany joined the effort. Germany, the U.K. and France are the largest economies in Europe.

However, some experts say these pledges have come with an immediate cost. "Embracing net-zero through forced conversion to windmills and solar panels, shutting down nuclear (which, hello, does not release carbon), relying on Russia for natural gas, and various other taxes and subsidies has contributed to the astonishing end of European growth," John H. Cochrane a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution told FOX Business via email.

The economic growth figures are bleak, and support Cochrane's view. For the European Union. From 2019 through 2024, it has grown at an average 1.2% annually, down from an average of 1.6% over the period 2000 through 2018, according to government data. For the U.K. average annual growth from 2019 through 2024 was 1.1% versus 1.9% on average from 2000 through 2018. Given that net-zero has only been embraced by Europe’s big economies for five years, it may be too early to categorically blame the policy for all of the slower growth. 
"Plus, it hasn’t done anything at all to lower carbon emissions," Cochrane said, adding that whatever gas isn’t used will get burned by someone else. He notes that China uses a lot of coal to make solar panels and batteries.

Lacalle says we’ve been sold a bill of goods. "A completely renewable energy-powered grid is simply not possible to achieve," he said. "And it’s dangerous, because there may be a blackout, and it doesn’t give any benefits to households."

Fox Business, May 18, 2025
https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-news-world/denmark-rethinks-nuclear-ban-after-spain-portugal-blackout-exposes-green-energy-vulnerability

The Tail Wags the Dog
Why Carbon Neutrality can be Misleading

Do any of you know of any town, city, or municipality across our country who is willing to do without medicines, plastics, detergents or most clothing? I know I do not know of any. Even cursory research on this issue reveals that while only a small percentage of petroleum products from crude oil (about 3%) is directly used for pharmaceutical manufacturing, about 99% of pharmaceutical feedstocks and reagents are derived from petrochemicals. In other words, petrochemicals are only a very small percentage of what crude oil is refined into but almost all pharmaceuticals use petrochemicals for their manufacture. Additionally about 98% of all plastics/polymers are made from petrochemicals and natural gas as well. And about 6% of all refinery production produces petrochemicals. 
  From the above it is evident that our country can not significantly reduce production of the main products from crude oil; namely gasoline, diesel and jet fuel without seriously affecting the production of petrochemicals from which medicines and plastics are manufactured. In other words the “tail wags the dog”!

Here is an example of how this works... 
One barrel of crude oil is refined into the following products and their percentages: (from the Illinois Petroleum Resources Board)
   43%   - Gasoline
   20%   - Diesel fuel 
   12.2% - Hydrocarbon liquids
   7.7%  - Jet fuel
   4.0%  - Propane
   6.3%  - Petrochemicals, other
   1.7%   - Asphalt
   1.6%   - Residual Fuel Oil
   1.3%   - Propylene
   1.2%   - Coke for petroleum
   1.0%   - Lubricants
————
100.0% - TOTAL

   As you can tell, a great variety of products are derived from each barrel of crude that is refined. And as stated above only about 6% of the oil is refined into petrochemicals, about 50% of which pharmaceuticals and plastics are produced.
 What this means is that we require a significant amount of oil to produce all of these critical products that virtually all of our society needs.

So given the above, adaptation is no doubt the better policy for the immediate future. Until enough sustainable crude oil can be produced to replace crude oil taken from within the ground, we need to be very cautious about “electrifying” flagstaff.  Again, the tail wags the dog.

Illegal Immigration
Ins and Outs of a Thorny Problem

As most of you know Prop 314 has already been approved by the voters of Arizona and applies to all cities including Flagstaff. This proposition makes it a state crime to cross over our border from any foreign nation illegally or at any point along our border that is not a lawful point of entry. 
A short summary of the provisions of Prop 314 is found from the Internet and is as follows:

“Arizona voters approved Proposition 314, which, if fully implemented, would criminalize illegal border crossings within the state and allow local law enforcement to arrest and deport individuals who enter without legal status. The measure also includes provisions related to using the E-Verify program for employment and public benefits and criminalizes the use of false documents to apply for those benefits.”

Additionally here are a few other but pertinent points re: Prop 314:

“It would authorize local police and sheriffs to arrest and detain individuals suspected of illegal border crossings, similar to federal immigration officers.”

“The measure would also grant state judges the authority to order deportations of individuals found to be in violation of the new state law.”

“Proposition 314 mandates the use of the E-Verify program to verify the employment eligibility of individuals applying for certain public benefits.” 

“It would also make it a Class 6 felony to use false documents or information when applying for public benefits or seeking employment to avoid detection of immigration status.”

And lastly:

“The measure also includes provisions relating to the sale of illicit fentanyl, criminalizing the sale of imported fentanyl with penalties increased for instances where it results in a death.”

Oddly enough however, Prop 314 ALSO includes explicit reference to it’s enforceability in the following provision: 
13-4295.04. Enforcement of article NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, THIS ARTICLE MAY NOT BE ENFORCED IN ANY MANNER UNTIL ANY PART OF SECTION 2 OF S.B. 4, 88TH LEG., 4TH CALLED SESS. (2023) THAT WAS ENACTED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, OR ANY OTHER LAW OF ANY OTHER STATE SIMILAR THERETO, HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF SIXTY CONSECUTIVE DAYS AT ANY TIME ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE.

What this means is that most AZ county sheriffs including ours have agreed not to enforce Prop 314 until the similar Texas SB4 law is settled by the courts assuming it is upheld and goes into effect. Currently this Texas law is held up in the fifth circuit court of appeals. As we all know however this says nothing about what the federal immigration laws can do and what ICE under the Trump administration is already enforcing. 

Another possibly concerning aspect of Prop 314 is that it is not retroactive as stated within it’s text AND that it says nothing about whether immigrants who are here illegally can be deported or charged with an offense. They need to be charged with specific crimes like applying for benefits and lying on their forms first. Or caught in the act of crossing illegally into our state outside of an official port of entry. 

Some of the arguments as to why this law is being held up and will in all likelihood need to be settled by the US Supreme Court is that it has been challenged on the grounds that it encroaches on the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration and could lead to racial profiling. In other words opponents say it is unConstitutional. 

Having said all of the above I believe most of us would agree with this laws’ justification of it’s passing as given in its very first provision below as it is still very much valid.

 A. The people of the State of Arizona find and declare as follows:
1. Due to weaknesses in immigration enforcement, a public safety crisis is occurring in Arizona, caused by transnational cartels engaging in rampant human trafficking and drug smuggling across this state's southern border.
2. From 2021 to 2023, United States Customs and Border Protection encountered nearly seven million immigrants illegally entering the United States through the southwest border. This number does not include an estimated two million "gotaways" who evaded encounters with border officials entirely.
3. From 2021 to 2023, United States Customs and Border Protection encountered two hundred eighty-two individuals on the terrorist watchlist illegally entering the southwest border between ports of entry. This is a 3033% increase over the prior three years when only nine such individuals were encountered.
4. From 2021 to 2023, the number of unaccompanied minors illegally crossing the southwest border skyrocketed to over four hundred thousand. Studies have shown that a majority of these children are victims of human trafficking.
5. From 2021 to 2023, the amount of fentanyl seized at the southwest border almost tripled, amounting to billions of doses of fentanyl. Illicit fentanyl, which is primarily produced in foreign nations and smuggled across the southwest border, is a synthetic opioid fifty times stronger than
heroin. Even a single dose can be lethal. Synthetic opioids like fentanyl have now become the leading cause of overdose deaths in the United States. Transnational cartels fund their operations by trafficking this deadly drug across the southwest border.
6. In 2022, the Arizona Department of Health Services reported that illicit fentanyl is primarily responsible for an increasing number of overdose deaths in Arizona and that opioid overdose data demonstrates the continued urgency to address the drug overdose crisis in Arizona through comprehensive and collaborative approaches.
7. Many individuals who enter the United States unlawfully are enticed by smugglers with promises of economic incentives, including employment and taxpayer-funded benefits. Human smuggling is a gateway crime for additional offenses, including identity theft, document fraud and benefit fraud, harming Arizona taxpayers. Unchecked and unauthorized employment causes economic hardship to Arizona workers who may face unfair labor competition, wage suppression and reduced working conditions or opportunities.

As we know and have learned from our county Sheriff Axlund as well as personal testimonies here in Coconino County, various SFBN freight trains passing through have been held up by the “Cartels” to commit robbery and import dangerous conditions to our community. We can only hope that both the federal government as well as our County and state law enforcement agencies constitute a sufficient deterrent to these threats.

CLICK the buttons below to read each articlE

Bill Gates' Dramatic Change on Carbon Neutrality

Flagstaff First Addresses Wildfire & Flood Crisis

Will Carbon Neutrality Save Flagstaff?

Carbon Neutrality’s Unintended Consequences

Flagstaff’s Heatpump Mandate

Denmark Rethinks Nuclear Ban

The Tail Wags the Dog Why Carbon Neutrality can be Misleading

Illegal Immigration Ins and Outs of a Thorny Problem

A wildfire has devastated the Grand Canyon's North Rim. What to know.

Socials