OPINION: Clear horizons, shady business

“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”

Those were the words that U.S. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (no relation) declared in 2019. Ocasio-Cortez was referencing a 2018 special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body of scientists. The report in part claimed that to limit warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon emissions need to decline by 45% by 2030. 

And so, with pitchforks and torches in hand, New Mexico politicians and their special interest groups set their sights on the oil and gas industry. Enter the “Clear Horizons Act” 2.0 (Senate Bill 18). I call it “2.0” because the original version (Senate Bill 4) was introduced during the 2025 session and died. This special interest-funded bill even has its own website, complete with apocalyptic claims about the earth’s future. The bill seeks to achieve a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 — not coincidentally — and a 100% reduction by 2050. Additionally, the bill shifts legislative authority to the New Mexico Environment Improvement Board to adopt a plan, set rules, honor reporting requirements, set a fee schedule and build enforcement measures to achieve these goals. As an aside, the New Mexico Supreme Court has recognized the “non-delegation doctrine,” which holds that the Legislature may not vest unbridled, arbitrary authority in an administrative body, but I digress.

It is indisputable that global energy consumption and demand have increased significantly, and with the advancement of artificial intelligence, they will continue to rise. If you are reading this on your phone while sitting in your electric vehicle, you immediately understand why. For reference, in 1990, the United States consumed about 2,800 terawatt-hours of electricity. Today, the United States consumes about 4,000 terawatt-hours of electricity annually. That number is expected to increase by 1.7% annually. 

To understand the debate, let’s talk about science. Conceptualize two types of energy — primary and secondary. Primary energy is a natural resource or fuel, such as wind, sunlight, wood, coal, petroleum, natural gas and uranium. Secondary energy is a resource derived from primary energy, such as electricity, kerosene, hydrogen, liquified petroleum gas and gasoline. Primary energy sources are converted, via combustion or a generator, into usable secondary energy. In the process, “greenhouse gases” may be emitted. The amount of emission is based on the chemical composition of the primary energy source. Less-dense energy sources, like coal, generally produce more carbon emissions than denser sources, like natural gas and uranium.

So, why can’t New Mexico rely solely on renewables? The reality is that wind and solar energy are intermittent and unreliable — just ask Texas. The wind doesn’t always blow. The sun doesn’t always shine. Also, there is no way to store large amounts of electricity for extended periods. For reference, one of the largest lithium battery storage centers in the world is in Escondido, California. It can only store enough renewable energy to power about 24,000 American homes for four hours. There are over 900,000 homes in New Mexico. Here’s some Clear Horizons irony: Natural gas is the primary energy source used to backstop the intermittency of renewables.

On a more ominous note, China is the world’s leading wind turbine manufacturer. Also, China produces over 80% of the global supply of solar panels. China also produces roughly 35% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, roughly 12.6 gigatons. In comparison, China produces more pollution than the United States, Mexico, Canada, England and Australia combined. Ironically, China’s primary energy source is coal — not renewables. Also, China is the world's largest oil importer. Here’s more Clear Horizons irony: China is the largest investor in green energy policies worldwide, a classic diversion tactic and genius on its part.

Contrary to the 2018 IPCC report, the International Energy Agency forecasts that carbon emissions will be lower by 2040 than the IPCC estimates. Carbon emissions in the United States significantly decreased between 2007 and 2018. However, globally, carbon emissions have increased, mostly in developing nations. It is widely believed that transitioning poorer areas of the world to natural gas or nuclear energy, away from wood and coal, would significantly reduce global carbon emissions. 

To the extent that anyone is willing to debunk the apocalyptic claims in the IPCC report, those individuals are ruthlessly harassed, bullied and mocked as “climate deniers.” Though some have tried. Like Richard Tol, who resigned from the IPCC because he did not agree with the direction the report was heading. Like the U.S. Geological Survey scientist, Dr. Jon Keeley, who has researched wildfires in the U.S. for 40 years and stated, "We don’t see any relationship between past climates and the amount of area burned in a given year.” Like University of Colorado scientist, Roger Pielke, who wrote, “There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally.” 

Climate alarmism is not new either. In 1989, United Nations official Noel Brown declared that governments had 10 years to solve the effects of greenhouse gases before the polar ice caps melted and destroyed entire nations. Brown’s prediction was supposed to occur by the year 2000. For perspective, the hottest day in New Mexico’s history was June 27, 1994. The most severe multiyear drought in New Mexico occurred from 1950 to 1956. Importantly, climate alarmism is having an impact, particularly on children, and it’s not a good one. In 2017, the American Psychological Association diagnosed rising eco-anxiety defined as “a chronic fear of environmental doom.” In conclusion, if the proponents of the Clear Horizons Act were serious about addressing climate change, they would promote New Mexico’s oil and gas industry and the delivery of New Mexico’s natural gas to developing nations. But the “green” money sure is nice, isn’t it?

Elaine Sena Cortex, R-Hobbs, represents District 62 in the New Mexico House of Representatives.