Rap music is a cultural force—a genre born from resistance, empowerment, and the raw expression of lived experiences. It’s a medium where truth and defiance converge, a powerful megaphone for calling out injustices, and an art form that resonates deeply with those who’ve been marginalized. But as much as I admire rap’s ability to confront societal issues, I can’t help but tie it back to the greatest injustice of our time: THE CLIMATE CRISIS. Because whether we’re talking about systemic oppression or environmental destruction, the underlying threads of greed, denial, and complacency are the same.

RAP: A VOICE FOR THE SILENCED

Rap has always been about giving voice to those who’ve been ignored, dismissed, or oppressed. From the gritty tales of survival in inner cities to the rallying cries against systemic racism, rap doesn’t just entertain—it EDUCATES and MOTIVATES. And if there’s any crisis screaming for such unapologetic truth-telling, it’s the climate emergency.

The fossil fuel industry, the corporate elite, and the climate-denial machine—they don’t want us to talk about the truth. But guess what? Rap knows how to cut through the noise and lay it BARE. Imagine rap’s unfiltered energy unleashed on the biggest existential threat humanity has ever faced. THE BEATS WOULD BE EARTHQUAKES, AND THE LYRICS WOULD BURN THROUGH LIES LIKE WILDFIRE!

DENIAL AND GREED: THE ENEMIES IN BOTH FIGHTS

Just as rap calls out systemic failures like police brutality and economic inequality, it must also tackle the SYSTEMIC DESTRUCTION of our planet. The same greed and apathy that fuel corporate exploitation of vulnerable communities are at the heart of the climate crisis. Fossil fuel executives rake in BILLIONS while the planet BURNS. Neighborhoods—often poor, often communities of color—are turned into sacrifice zones for toxic waste and pollution.

THIS IS ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM! And you know who has the power to shout it from the rooftops and drop the mic on climate deniers? RAP ARTISTS. Imagine lines like:

“They poison our water, they blacken our skies,
Profit from the pain while the Earth slowly dies.
It’s Exxon, it’s Chevron, the billionaires’ game,
But WE are the ones who inherit the flame.”

THE POWER OF RAP’S PLATFORM

Rap has the power to reach audiences far beyond the usual climate conversations. Politicians and scientists can write op-eds, but a rap track can ignite a MOVEMENT. Artists like Kendrick Lamar, J. Cole, and others have already proven that they can weave activism into their music. And we need that fire to fuel climate action, to make it IMPOSSIBLE for deniers to hide, and to inspire the youth who are already leading the fight for a sustainable future.

Picture this: a rap album entirely focused on the climate crisis. Songs about rising seas, disappearing species, and the millions displaced by environmental disasters. Tracks that call out the enablers of destruction by name. THIS IS THE ENERGY WE NEED!

RAP AND CLIMATE: THE ULTIMATE COLLAB

Rap thrives on raw emotion—anger, hope, defiance—and there’s no issue more emotionally charged than the climate emergency. What’s more heartbreaking than knowing the Amazon rainforest is being slashed and burned? What’s more enraging than watching politicians shrug while glaciers melt and wildfires rage? And what’s more hopeful than the realization that WE HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THIS?

Rap could be the soundtrack of the climate revolution. It’s the perfect medium for rallying the masses, for saying what scientists can’t always say: THIS SYSTEM IS BROKEN, AND IT’S KILLING US ALL. Rap artists can turn climate data into battle cries, transforming charts and statistics into unforgettable hooks that shake listeners to their core.

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR OUR FUTURE

Rap music is rebellion. It’s resilience. It’s truth. And in the face of the climate crisis, we need ALL OF THAT and MORE. Because the fight for our planet isn’t just about science—it’s about JUSTICE. It’s about standing up to the forces of greed and denial, just as rap has always stood up to oppression.

So to all the rap artists out there: PICK UP THE MIC AND JOIN THE FIGHT! Use your words to call out the climate deniers, the oil tycoons, and the politicians who delay and deflect while the Earth suffers. Spit bars that inspire action, that make people uncomfortable in the best possible way. Because if we don’t act NOW, there won’t be a stage left to perform on.

THE BEAT IS DROPPING, AND THE TIME IS NOW! WILL YOU RAP FOR THE PLANET? 🎤🌍

By Tilak K. Doshi

A spate of stories in the media recently provides a remarkable illustration of how the globalist policy agenda of the climate industrial complex has captured key international institutions and perverted their original organizational aims. From initially serving broad, laudable objectives for the welfare of their constituents, these institutions have been subverted over the years to serve the insistent pseudoscientific claims of climate alarmists.

The corruption of global institutions has, in turn, led to significant opposition that is becoming apparent. There is the prospect of an incoming Trump administration that is avowedly sceptical of the claims of an alleged climate crisis and is intent on exiting the UN’s Paris Agreement and its “net zero by 2050” policy target for a second time. This presents a welcome challenge to these corrupt institutions. Will President Trump and some of the populist parties in Europe be capable of countering the entrenched globalist climate agenda?

The World Bank

On 17^th October, Oxfam published a report that shockingly found that up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance —nearly 40% of all climate funds disbursed by the Bank over the past seven years— is “unaccounted for between the time projects were approved and when they closed.” In other words, no one knows how the money was used. There is no paper trail revealing where the money went or what the accomplished results were.

Green cronyism, ranging from the Solyndra debacle – the waste of almost half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on a failed solar farm project under President Obama’s watch — to President Biden’s duplicitously-named Inflation Reduction Act which will unleash an estimated $1 trillion deluge of subsidies on favored “green” industries is nothing new. But it is instructive to trace the World Bank’s decline from its honorable founding objectives to its current status as yet another institution advocating green causes.

Dr. Jim Yong Kim, reflecting the progressive virtues of President Obama who appointed him as president of the World Bank in 2012, imposed a ban on the financing of coal-fired power stations in 2013. This was followed by a ban on investments in all new upstream oil and gas resource development projects. The distinguished economist Deepak Lal,  a former Research Administrator of the Bank, remarked that Dr. Kim incredulously “over-ruled the cost-benefit estimates of coal-based power over solar and wind-based power generation produced by his own economic staff, justifying this by reference to a wish to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.”

The World Bank’s objections to the use of fossil fuels despite their importance to economic growth and poverty alleviation – which constitute its foundational institutional objectives — can be traced to the intellectual evolution of its management under James Wolfensohn during his decade as president (1995 – 2005). Mr. Wolfensohn traced the arc from the old regime to the new. The old was represented by the “Washington consensus” of free markets, liberal trading regimes, sound money and entrepreneurship associated with the classical liberalism of Adam Smith.

The new intellectual environment of the World Bank’s management – personified by Joseph Stiglitz, Chief Economist of the World Bank (1997 – 2000) — was defined by the theoretical failures of the free market, especially in accounting for the alleged negative climate impacts of fossil fuel use. Stiglitz, a climate alarmist, wrote in a 2015 court brief for a failed climate lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of children against the US Federal government that “fossil fuel-based economies imposed ‘incalculable’ costs on society and shifting to clean energy will pay off.”

Rupert Darwall, a former adviser to the United Kingdom’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and author of Green Tyranny, encapsulates the betrayal of the World Bank to its founding objectives as follows:

The World Bank’s mission has been subverted by green ideologues who assert that a low-carbon world benefits the world’s poor but fail to acknowledge that making energy much more costly increases poverty. The World Bank tags itself as ‘working for a world free of poverty’…In making its choice between development and sustainability, the World Bank has decided it is going to try and ‘save the planet’ on the backs of the poor.

By abdicating its founding principles for alleviating global poverty, the World Bank has taken a lead role among multilateral financial institutions in denying vast financial resources to poorer countries. It has hypocritically vetoed the right of developing countries to adopt the path of economic growth and environmental improvement that the now-rich countries had taken up successfully since the industrial revolution two centuries ago. The Bank’s obsessive support for intermittent, low-yield renewable energy such as solar and wind power comes at the cost of its central charter to help the poor, an outcome that can only be described as egregiously unjust.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The UN IPCC issued a news release on December 6^th prior to the start of a “scoping” meeting in Kuala Lumpur of over 230 experts from 70 countries to draft outlines of working group contributions to the UN IPCC’s 7^th Assessment Report (to be completed in 2029). In the press release, the IPCC claimed that human combustion of fossil fuels “has resulted in more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world.” This is contrary to the IPCC’s position hitherto, which is that almost all types of extreme weather events cannot be attributed with confidence to human activity. 

The position of the IPCC regarding the lack of any link between climate change and extreme weather events is contrary to the almost daily headlines in the mainstream media attributing specific adverse weather events to “climate change.”  The work of eminent climate policy analysts  Steve Koonin and Roger Pielke Jr. has done much to expose the pseudoscientific nature of what has been called “attribution studies.” These typically involve researchers who apply their climate models and historical observations to conclude that any particular weather event (say a hurricane or a drought) was made “more likely” or “more severe” by some magnitude in percentage units due to “human influence” (referring to the combustion of fossil fuels).

Based on the dubious claims of “attribution science,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a climate law last week that will require companies operating in New York state responsible for large amounts of planet-warming pollution to contribute to climate damage repair efforts. Under the new state law, companies responsible for the bulk of emissions from 2000 to 2018 will be on the hook for some $3 billion a year over the next 25 years.

Steve Koonin cites the World Meteorological Organization that states that “any single event, such as tropical cyclone cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the state of scientific understanding.” The IPCC’s “Special Report on Extreme Events” states that “Many weather and climate extremes are the result of natural climate variability…Even if there were no anthropogenic changes in climate, a wide variety of natural weather and climate extremes would still occur.”

Nonetheless, international organizations such as the World Bank and the IPCC have been increasingly politicized to serve climate hysteria. In this context, Chris Morrison of The Daily Sceptic finds that “[f]ears are growing that the IPCC could water down or even ditch its current finding that almost all types of extreme weather events have little or no sign of past human involvement, or any going forward to 2100.”

International Energy Agency

On December 23^rd, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, released a report documenting how the International Energy Agency “has moved away from its energy security mission to become an “energy transition” cheerleader.” The report finds that the “French President Macron’s observation that IEA has become the ‘armed wing for implementing the Paris Agreement’ is regrettably true. With the many serious energy security challenges facing the world, however, IEA should not be a partisan cheerleader. What the world needs from IEA—and what it is not receiving now—is sober and unbiased analyses and projections that educate and inform policymakers and investors. IEA needs to remember why it was established and return to its energy security mission.”

The divergence of the IEA away from its original mission to advise policymakers in its member countries with sound analysis of trends in global energy supply and demand to becoming a “cheerleader” for radical net zero emission policy targets has not gone unnoticed over recent years. I have written on the ideological approach adopted by the IEA in its advocacy for green causes here, here, and here.

When the organization issued a call for the cessation of all future investments in developing fossil fuel resources in May 2021, this is what I wrote:

It is a month since the International Energy Agency – the rich world’s energy advisory body established in the wake of the oil price shock of 1973 — issued its astonishing report calling for the end to all new investments in oil and gas (let alone coal) from 2021. As expected, the IEA “road-map” elicited widespread media coverage and strong reactions, ranging from gushing support from those convinced of a “climate emergency” to outright dismissal, as in the case of the Saudi oil minister who called the report a sequel to “La La Land.” 

When ideological advocacy becomes the measure of achievement for the IEA, the loss of credibility and soundness of its policy advice is only to be expected.  The IEA’s messianic fervour for green technologies such as solar and wind power, “green” hydrogen, batteries and electric vehicles prevents it from asking basic questions. If it is true that drastically cutting back on fossil fuels is consistent with higher economic growth and increased productive employment, why does the IEA recommend policymakers to force countries along “net-zero” pathways? Surely, if replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar energy and electric vehicles promote growth and employment, then wouldn’t countries such as China and India naturally race towards this best of all possible worlds without expensive green subsidies and punitive anti-fossil fuel policies?

The Trumpian Revolution Looms

Non-profit organizations reflect the needs of their funding members, and organizations such as the World Bank, IPCC and IEA are no different. As their funding is primarily from the US and EU, it is not surprising that they manifest the “climate emergency” predilections of the Biden administration and the largely left-socialist West European governments which see climate change as an existential threat and a national security priority. In taking up the mantle of green advocacy on behalf of their paymasters, these organizations have lost all credibility as independent and objective advisors for their member countries.

The climate industrial complex fears the prospect of the Trump administration’s pullout of the Paris agreement for the second time. Politico, a reliable mouthpiece for the climate establishment, expressed these fears soon after Mr. Trump’s election victory: “The world is bracing for President-elect Donald Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement for the second time — only this time, he could move faster and with less restraint.” In Europe, the emergence of populist parties  have been partly propelled by the widespread rejection by EU citizens of the onerous fiscal burdens imposed by green policies. 

The seismic change in policy direction that a second term “drill, baby, drill” Trump administration promises for the global climate juggernaut – represented by the three leading international agencies covered here – can only be seen as hopeful as we look forward to positive developments in energy policy in 2025.

Dr. Tilak K. Doshi is an economist, a former contributor to Forbes and a member of the C0₂ Coalition. Follow him on Substack and X.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

By Jo Nova

Extraordinary.  Four years ago a crowd armed with flags and a helmet with horns was taking part in the greatest fake insurrection that never was. But today, Kamala certified Donald Trump’s win. Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as Prime Minister of Canada and Elon Musk is publicly tearing strips off the Prime Minister of the UK.

Twitter —  X — is alive in a pile-on that has been building for a few days and is now breaking out into the real world. Finally, the worst depravity, the moral plague that infects the UK bureaucracy at every level, is being exposed. And even Keir Starmer is in the cross-hairs. He was director of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 – 2013. He secured some of these “token” prosecutions, but many cases were dropped, even with DNA evidence.

It is as if years of corruption and a fake media are starting to unravel. Musk has achieved more in a few tweets than twenty years of media investigation in the UK. Starmer has finally had to answer Musk in a press conference, and dismisses demands for a full inquiry as “jumping on the bandwagon of the “Far Right”. Musk, the richest man in the world, and the incoming US presidents right hand man, replied that Starmer is “utterly despicable”.

President Macron has accused Musk of interfering in foreign elections, and Musk replied “Oh, like that time Starmer called @realDonaldTrump a racist and said the British government should do everything to stop him?”

By Dominic Green, The Free Press

The serial rape of thousands of English girls went on for many years. Few in power cared. Then Elon Musk started tweeting.

LONDON — The grooming and serial rape of thousands of English girls by men of mostly Pakistani Muslim background over several decades is the biggest peacetime crime in the history of modern Europe. It went on for many years. It is still going on. And there has been no justice for the vast majority of the victims.

British governments, both Conservative and Labour, hoped that they had buried the story after a few symbolic prosecutions in the 2010s. And it looked like they had succeeded—until Elon Musk read some of the court papers and tweeted his disgust and bafflement on X over the new year.

Britain now stands shamed before the world.

The scandal is already reshaping British politics. It’s not just about the heinous nature of the crimes. It’s that every level of the British system is implicated in the cover-up.

Social workers were intimidated into silence. Local police ignored, excused, and even abetted pedophile rapists across dozens of cities. Senior police and Home Office officials deliberately avoided action in the name of maintaining what they called “community relations.” Local councilors and Members of Parliament rejected pleas for help from the parents of raped children. Charities, NGOs, and Labour MPs accused those who discussed the scandal of racism and Islamophobia. The media mostly ignored or downplayed the biggest story of their lifetimes. Zealous in their incuriosity, much of Britain’s media elite remained barnacled to the bubble of Westminster politics and its self-serving priorities.

They did this to defend a failed model of multiculturalism, and to avoid asking hard questions about failures of immigration policy and assimilation.

The girls were coerced with food, or drugged, gang-raped and sometimes murdered. The horror stories occurred in as many as 50 cities and no one knows how many victims there are. It’s been going on for decades. One report estimated there were 1,400 victims in just one town (Rotherham). When fathers tried to intervene they were sometimes the ones who were arrested. The injustice is shocking. There is a Tommy Robinson documentary somewhere on X. He is in jail.

To finish on a lighter note — to celebrate that at least Canada has freed itself from the man who doxxed and froze bank accounts of everyone who gave $10 to help the Canadian Truckers protest, Donald Trump’s tweet today: