I ran across an article in Denverite that made that same ol' bile rise up in my belly. Because it just proved what my gut told me years ago when every virtue-signaling leftist government was rushing to set "bold climate goals:" this is nothing more than a grift designed to fail - and when it does fail, they'll just ask for more money, blame the normies, and regulate harder. It sucks to be right.
There’s a routine here so predictable you could set your watch by it – and, conveniently, that watch would still be legal while your gas stove gets regulated out of existence.
A city announces a bold, aspirational, “science-based” climate goal. Percentages are involved. Graphs are implied. Everyone claps like they’ve just watched a TED Talk with feelings. The mayor beams. The base cheers. The press nods solemnly.
Then reality shows up. Late. Uninvited. And rude.
The city misses the goal – not by a little, not by “pandemic disruptions,” but by a canyon-sized margin. And when the deadline arrives? Nobody gets fired. Nobody apologizes. Nobody admits the plan was nonsense.
Instead, they reach for the only tool they ever really planned to use: more taxes, more rules, and more bureaucrats.
Different clowns. Same circus.
Step One: Declare the Goal (Science™ Optional)
Let’s start with Denver.
Denver set emissions targets that sound laser-precise and morally unassailable:
• 40% below 2019 levels by 2025
• 65% by 2030
• Net-zero by 2040
Those numbers feel scientific. Percent signs always do. But here’s the dirty little secret – one city official admitted the targets weren’t based on what was practical, achievable, or affordable, but on what climate models say the entire planet would need to do.
That’s not planning. That’s policy astrology.
No credible roadmap. No cost curve. No explanation of how a single city – without control over regional power grids, interstate trucking, or federal appliance standards – was supposed to pull this off without wrecking affordability.
But hey, the vibes were immaculate.
Step Two: Tax the Normies to Prove You’re Serious
Once the goal is declared, the next step is automatic: create a permanent funding stream.
Denver voters approved a “tiny” sales tax for climate action. Just a quarter-cent! Barely noticeable! Except it now quietly funnels tens of millions of dollars every year into climate programs – whether emissions fall, stall, or rise.
This is where the grift locks in.
The money:
- Does not depend on results
- Does not sunset
- Does not shrink when goals are missed
Failure doesn’t kill the program. Failure feeds it.
That’s not accountability. That’s a piñata full of taxpayer dollars, and everyone in City Hall brought a bat.
Step Three: Build the Bureaucracy (Job Security Achieved)
Enter the Denver Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency – a name so carefully focus-grouped it practically files a defamation suit if you question it.
Who could oppose “resiliency”? What monster dislikes “sustainability”?
And once the office exists, it must be fed:
- Staff positions
- Consultants
- Outreach coordinators
- Program managers
- Engagement specialists
- More consultants
Soon, success is no longer measured in emissions reduced, but in:
- rebates issued
- programs launched
- dashboards updated
- press releases distributed
The bureaucracy grows. The emissions… don’t care.
Step Four: Miss the Goal (By Embarrassing Distances)
Here’s the moment the narrative collapses.
As Denver barrels toward its 2025 deadline – again, 40% reduction – it’s sitting around 18%. Emissions have barely moved since 2020.
That’s not “we need a little more time.”
That’s “this was never remotely achievable.”
Transportation emissions remain stubborn. Building emissions dominate. Bike commuting – despite heavy incentives – hovers far below city targets.
Turns out the climate doesn’t respond to hashtags.
Step Five: Regulate Harder, Blame Reality
Now comes the pivot every time.
Since rebates and feel-good programs didn’t magically rewire human behavior, the city escalates to mandates – especially on buildings. Compliance deadlines. Penalties. Rules written by people who don’t pay the rent.
Building owners warn about costs. City officials shrug. Those costs don’t disappear – they get passed down to:
- renters
- consumers
- small businesses
That’s the part never modeled in the glossy climate plan: who actually eats the bill.
Spoiler: it’s not the activists. It’s the suburban normie trying to afford groceries, gas, and housing in the same zip code.
Boulder and Colorado: Same Script, Fewer Parking Spots
If this were just Denver, you might call it municipal incompetence. But hop over to Boulder or zoom out to Colorado and you’ll find the same playbook:
- Big targets
- Moral framing
- No serious feasibility analysis
- Guaranteed funding
- Regulatory escalation when reality intrudes
Ambition replaces arithmetic. Intention substitutes for impact.
The Real Grift Isn’t Climate – It’s Incentives
Let’s be crystal clear before the usual strawmen show up.
This is not “climate denial.”
It’s not opposition to conservation, efficiency, or cleaner tech.
It’s not saying innovation shouldn’t win on merit.
It is saying this system is designed so that:
- Goals are branding exercises
- Money flows regardless of performance
- Failure justifies more control
- Costs are dumped on people with no lobbyists
When programs are rewarded for spending money instead of proving results, the outcome is inevitable: bloated offices, louder rhetoric, and thinner wallets.
If This Were Actually About Science…
Real science would demand:
- measurable outcomes
- falsifiable assumptions
- cost transparency
- consequences for failure
Instead, we get moral lectures and invoices.
Which brings us to the number they never want to show you.
SIDEBAR: FOLLOW THE MONEY
Cost Per Ton – The Number That Terrifies Climate Bureaucrats
I’m not saying this should happen – in fact, in my mind, “climate” is not the role of government – but say I played by their narrative – here’s what I would do: If a city were serious – serious – about emissions reduction, every climate program would publish one brutally simple metric:
Cost per ton of CO₂ reduced
That’s it. No vibes. No poetry. Just math.
Here’s why this matters:
- Some policies reduce CO₂ for tens of dollars per ton
- Others cost hundreds – or thousands – per ton
- Many local programs don’t even bother to calculate it
Why? Because once you do, the grift becomes visible.
When you divide total program cost by actual, verified emissions reductions, you often discover:
- E-bike rebates that cost more per ton than industrial efficiency upgrades
- Tree programs that sound great but barely move the needle
- Administrative overhead eating a shocking share of funds
In other words: great press releases, terrible returns.
What Real Accountability Would Look Like
- Publish cost-per-ton for every program
- Compare programs honestly
- Kill the worst performers
- Scale what actually works
No hiding behind “equity,” “engagement,” or “momentum.”
Just results – or the program dies.
That’s how science works.
That’s also exactly why this metric stays buried.
The Bottom Line
Modern climate policy has become a grift-adjacent industry – where missing the goal expands the enterprise, where “science-based” means “don’t question us,” and where every failure demands more money and less freedom.
Every time the target slips away, the answer is never:
“We were wrong.”
It’s always:
“Pay more. Obey harder.”
And somehow – some way – the planet will be saved… right after the next tax increase.
