When I think of my neighboring state to the north, Wisconsin, I generally reflect on how much I despise the Green Bay Packers. However, more recently, I’ve been watching in abject horror as the Badger State becomes yet another victim of the climate alarmist green transition.
Meet Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, who is certain that climate change is causing doom in his state, despite a total lack of evidence.
According to Evers, “The climate crisis is taking an undeniable toll on the health, safety, and economic well-being of folks across our state. The livelihood of Wisconsin farmers is in danger with extreme and unpredictable weather taking a toll on crops and production, our state’s tourism industry and economy depends on our vast and valuable natural resources, and as health professionals have indicated, the health of our people depends on the health of the environments they live in.”
Based on this false premise, which will be debunked below, Evers has launched an ambitious “Clean Energy Plan.”
“Every Wisconsinite – whether they live in the Driftless, the Central Sands, the Northwoods, or in the heart of our urban areas – has experienced the effects of climate change in one way or another, and reducing carbon emissions and bolstering clean energy opportunities will remain a priority for me as long as I am governor,” Evers declared.
“We don’t have to choose between mitigating climate change and protecting our environment and good-paying jobs and affordable energy. Wisconsin is ready for bold and urgent solutions that will stop treating these goals as mutually exclusive – we can and will do both,” he added.
Under his Clean Energy Plan, Wisconsin will become “100 percent carbon-free by 2050,” fulfill “the carbon reduction goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement,” reduce “disproportionate impacts of energy generation and use on low-income communities and communities of color,” maximize “the creation of, and equitable opportunities for, clean energy jobs,” and prioritize “health equity, environmental justice, and equitable economic development.”
The problem is that this plan would put Wisconsin back into the Stone Age. And it would litter the state’s pristine landscapes with big, ugly, bird-killing windmills and solar panels. It would also cause residents of the Badger State to pay through the nose for electricity and gasoline, if internal-combustion engine vehicles are still allowed in Wisconsin years from now.
The most whacky part of all this climate alarmism and fantasies of a quick and easy green transition in Wisconsin is that the state is thriving due to modest recent warming.
This is not speculation, it is based on empirical data.
As my colleague, Linnea Lueken, notes in a new climate profile of Wisconsin, “According to USDA data, Wisconsin’s corn grain production, which includes corn for human and animal consumption, as well as ethanol production, has increased 45 percent since 1990, and soybean production rose an astounding 477 percent in that same period.”
“Harmful climate change is not evident in Wisconsin’s weather, climate, or agricultural data. Winter temperatures are not quite as cold, which benefits human health, not harms it. Neither flood nor tornado trends are worsening. Modest warming has boosted agricultural output, benefiting Wisconsin farmers and consumers,” the report concludes.
Regardless of these indisputable facts, Evers continues to plow forward with his Clean Energy Plan.
Even if Evers is right, his assertion that his Clean Energy Plan “will improve the reliability and affordability of the energy system” is flat-out wrong.
In “Affordable, Reliable, and Clean: An Objective Scorecard to Assess Competing Energy Sources,” Heartland Institute President James Taylor notes, “Affordable, reliable, and clean are the foundational elements of sound energy policy. An in-depth analysis of seven common electrical power sources reveals that natural gas makes the most sense according to the affordable, reliable, and clean standard, with nuclear, hydro, and coal not far behind. Biomass trails by a moderate margin while wind and solar stand apart as the least desirable power sources.”
Moreover, it must be emphasized that so-called green energy is not good for the environment when the totality of its manufacturing process is taken into account.
In sum, it looks like all is well in Wisconsin. There is no pending climate catastrophe.
The real imminent threat comes from climate alarmists like Gov. Evers, who know that their harebrained green energy transition will make life a whole lot worse for residents of the Badger State while destroying huge swaths of beautiful, untouched land.

(The Center Square) – The new Wisconsin biennial budget, if passed, would fund 12.5 new assistant district attorney positions for Milwaukee County, provide funds for the county’s state highway patrol and allow the county to appropriate 100% of its traffic fine revenues.
However, the budget includes no direct funds for the planned $500 million Milwaukee courthouse, a key priority of county officials.
County officials said they have long wanted state aid for Milwaukee’s highway patrolling, since they are one of the only counties required to fund their own patrols without reimbursement.
“We are hopeful that there will be legislative support to help address the significant public safety needs within Milwaukee County,” a spokesperson for Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley previously told The Center Square. “Importantly, Milwaukee County provides a variety of unique, mandated public safety services that no other county is required to provide, including patrolling state and federal highways within the county.”
While new budget wouldn’t provide direct state aid for Milwaukee’s patrols, it would transfer segregated funds and allow the county to appropriate money from its own traffic fine revenues.
According to Omnibus Motion 130, the base funding of roughly $1 million for Milwaukee’s expressway policing aids would be increased by $18 million in 2025-26 and $20 million in 2026-27.
The motion also allows Milwaukee County to retain 100% of fine and forfeiture revenues from violations of state traffic laws, and requires that those revenues be deposited into a segregated account that can only be used for “purposes related to the operation of the district attorney’s office.”
However, because current law mandates 50% of traffic fines to go to the county and 50% to go to the Common School Fund, the motion would cause the Common School Fund to lose its 50% share, which the budget estimates to be $2.2 million annually.
The budget adds 12.5 new Assistant DAs to help with Milwaukee’s courtroom backlog, funded from the fines and forfeitures collected by the county.
Assistant DAs were another point of contention on the Joint Finance Committee, with Democrats previously criticizing Republicans for adopting a motion to add 42 new attorney positions to the state but none for Milwaukee or Dane Counties, The Center Square reported.
While Brown County received the most new assistant DA positions – seven – in the previous motion, Milwaukee County’s 12.5 new positions would take the lead under the new budget, becoming the top recipient of assistant DAs in the state.
Although Gov. Tony Evers had proposed $25 million to be invested in the new Milwaukee courthouse over the biennium, the initiative was not taken up in the current budget.
The budget is set to be voted on by the full state Senate and Assembly today before it can be sent to Evers’ desk.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s proposed biennial budget, if passed, includes a deal to repurpose $172 million in earned interest from unspent COVID-19 relief funds originally controlled by Gov. Tony Evers.
The deal would fund key initiatives and, according to Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Oconto, “solve a potential constitutional crisis.”
The budget agreement between Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee and Evers follows a months-long spat over the interest earnings, opening unprecedented legal challenges which lawmakers saw as a road to impeachment, a veto or a court fight, The Center Square previously reported.
Wimberger said that appropriating the money toward other budget initiatives was an approach that could avoid those options.
“The agreement settles that question and, in fact, probably solves a potential constitutional crisis going forward,” Wimberger said.
According to Wimberger, the key question at hand was, “Can the federal government give money to a state with instructions to spend it or not spend it, and then have the governor collect the interest and not have to turn it over to the treasury and then be able to spend it at his discretion, essentially taking the power of the purse out of the Legislature?”
By keeping the money, Wimberger previously said Evers had created a “$172 million slush fund” for himself.
The interest earnings caused lawmakers to raise several concerns about whether the interest is a federal or state fund.
Some argued it belonged in the treasury because state law indicates that state funds must be deposited into the treasury, while others argued on behalf of Evers’ Department of Administration that the interest functioned the same as actual Coronavirus State and Local Recovery funds themselves, and were therefore at the governor’s disposal.
While The Center Square previously reported Wimberger had co-authored a bill requiring Evers to transfer the $172 million to the treasury, lawmakers such as Sen. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, contended the bill was pointless since Evers could just veto it.
One way or the other, lawmakers on both sides concluded the issue would probably end up in a court fight with the governor.
However, Joint Finance Committee co-chair Rep. Mark Born, R-Beaver Dam, said leaders rather decided to negotiate with Evers to put the money towards actual budget initiatives than to leave it up to Evers’ discretion or litigation.
“In our discussions with the governor, we continued to find ways to make investments – preferably one-time investments – to get the money used for something so it didn’t just become a slush fund that he was just gonna try to control,” Born said in an interview with The Center Square. “I think they became interested in finding something to use so that it didn’t become a litigation in the future.”
After the tentative deal, the $172 million under Omnibus Motion 130, now puts the money toward child care, builders, food security, and university investments – some of Evers’ biggest budget priorities.
Of that, $110 million of the earnings would support “bridge payments” directly to child care providers, which means the money will invest in providers to cover expenses for the short-term until long-term financing is secured.
Also, $50 million will go to a building commission grant program to assist non-state organizations with “facility construction.”
The budget would transfer $5 million from the interest earnings to support a pilot program by the Department of Children and Families to increase the monthly maximum payment rate by $200 for children under 18 months old and by $100 for children aged between 18 months and 30 months.
Another $5 million investment would be made to a food security grant program to make up for federal funding losses in DATCP’s grant programs for nonprofit food assistance organizations.
$1 million would be given to UW-Green Bay’s “Rising Phoenix” program enabling high school students to earn college credit.
Child care, which receives $115 million of the $172 million, was one of Evers’ highest budget priorities, which he even threatened to veto the entire budget over if the Joint Finance Committee didn’t “do something about [it],” The Center Square previously reported.
However, when asked whether or not appropriating the $172 million towards Evers’ child care priorities was a factor that led him to giving up the interest earnings as part of the budget deal, Born said, “I could only speculate as to what the factors were that got the governor make a particular decision.”
Evers’ office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment at the time of publication.
The proposed budget is set to be voted on by the state Senate and Assembly today and could be sent for Evers’ signature soon thereafter.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers signed into law bills that would require a nuclear power siting study for the state and the creation of nuclear power summit.
The bills require a temporary board to plan and hold a Wisconsin Nuclear Power Summit and a nuclear siting study for identifying potential communities ideal for nuclear power generation, including both existing and new sites.
The siting study is funded by $2 million that is currently in the Wisconsin budget, set to be taken up Wednesday by the Wisconsin Legislature.
“We can’t afford to choose between mitigating climate change and protecting our environment or creating good-paying jobs and building a strong economy, and by working toward clean energy options Wisconsinites can depend on in the future, we’re doing both,” Evers said in a statement. “We must continue our efforts to help lower energy costs and improve energy independence by reducing our reliance out-of-state energy sources, and these bills are an important step in the right direction.”
Funding for the summit would come through Wisconsin’s Economic Development Corp.
The bills came as Wisconsin’s future energy needs are heightened with the approval of large-scale data center projects in Pleasant Prairie, Beaver Dam and Port Washington that are each expected to use large amounts of energy.
Rep. David Steffen, R-Howard, said that a new Microsoft data center in Mount Pleasant would use the same amount of energy as the city of Madison and the Cloverleaf project in Port Washington would use the same amount of power as the entire city of Los Angeles.
That large amount of power used can lead to increased energy bills for residential customers with the average American’s energy bill expected to increase from 25% to 70% in the next 10 years without intervention from policymakers, according to Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Jack Kemp Foundation.
A new poll published on Wednesday showed that Americans do not want large data centers built in their communities and even less wanted those data centers if public incentives are involved.
In Wisconsin, lawmakers have pushed for a data center exception to state laws on property tax captures at the sites to lure the projects to the state.
“These data centers are so big and so valuable and such a prize for a community that (state laws capping TIFs) really creates a problem,” said Sen. John Jagler, R-Watertown.

(The Center Square) – Some schools in Wisconsin are spending more per-student than it costs to go to the University of Wisconsin’s biggest campus.
The state’s Department of Public Instruction released its general school aid figures for the next school year.
“General school aids are the largest form of state support for Wisconsin public schools, offsetting local property taxes under state-imposed revenue limits. Wisconsin statutes require the Department of Public Instruction to publish estimated aid amounts by July 1 each year,” DPI said in a statement. “As such, the estimated general school aid used in this estimate totals $5.58 billion.”
“The average district in WI now has $18,500 in revenue per student. Many
districts in the state are now spending over $30,000 per student” the
Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty’s Will Flanders said. “These numbers are insane.”
Gibraltar Area Schools in Door County are the largest spender per-pupil in state dollars at $37,484 according to WILL.
When you add in federal dollars, La Du Flambeau Schools in the Northwoods becomes the largest per-pupil spending in the state at $41,026, according to Flanders.
Milwaukee Public Schools, Wisconsin’s largest school district is ranked 33rd in the state for spending at $24,682 according to WILL’s calculations. Though there are dozens of other school districts that spend more than $24,000 per-student.
“Bayfield spends more per student than full tuition, room and board at @UWMadison,” Flander’s colleague at WILL Dan Lennington said on social media. “Yet only 32% of the kids are proficient in English and in math. Why are the voters in Bayfield tolerating this government thievery? I could ask the same question for dozens more districts.”
And the per-pupil numbers are sure to go up before school starts. DPI said its figures do not include categorical payments, like special education dollars.
The legislature and the governor have agreed to a $500 million special education increase alone.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s Supreme Court overturned the state’s 1849 abortion law with a Wednesday ruling, stating that legislation since then should supersede and replace the law in a 4-3 decision.
The ruling was written by Rebecca Dallet with concurrence by Jill Karofsky, Ann Walsh Bradley and Janet Protasiewicz. In dissent were Annette Ziegler, Rebecca Bradley and Brian Hagedorn.
“We conclude that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the ‘who, what, where, when, and how’ of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion,” the ruling said.
The ruling came after a 2023 ruling from Dane County Judge Diane Schlipper stating the 1849 law that bans almost all abortions in the state only applies to people who intentionally kill a baby, what she called feticide, and it does not apply when a woman agrees to end her pregnancy.
“The majority opinion is a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will, placing personal preference over the constitutional roles of the three branches of our state government and upending a duly enacted law,” Ziegler wrote in dissent. “In this dangerous departure from our constitutional design, four members of the court make up and apply their own version of implied repeal, failing to hew to any semblance of traditional judicial decision-making or jurisprudence.”
The challenge to the law came from Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, joined by the Department of Safety and Professional Services, the Medical Examining Board, and its chairman after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe vs. Wade in 2022.
Lawmakers updated the law in 1985, then again in 2015 under former Gov. Scott Walker.
The law was a large topic in this spring’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race, where Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel. But the ruling came before Crawford takes office on Aug. 1.

(The Center Square) – Most U.S. voters oppose having data centers built in their community and even more oppose the data centers if tax incentives are awarded to have them built, according to a poll released Wednesday morning by Libertas Network.
Overton Insights asked 1,200 registered voters the questions between June 23-26 on behalf of Libertas, which says it focuses on family education and policy reform as it looks to “change hearts, minds and laws to create a freer future.”
Libertas had Overton Insights ask the data center questions upon suggestion from The Center Square.
The poll asked voters specifically if they supported or opposed building new data centers for artificial intelligence in their community with 46% of respondents strongly or somewhat opposing the prospect, 36% strongly or somewhat supporting and 18% uncertain.
Of those that supported building data centers in their community, 69% still supported the idea if tax subsidies or incentives were involved to bring the data centers while 23% or those initially supportive would oppose the idea if those tax breaks were involved.
Data center projects have popped up across the country in recent years with many of those proposals including tax breaks.
The data centers are used to create the computing power for AI and to store the large amounts of information needed for those technologies but the Incentives are often opposed because, despite the large amount of money spent on the buildings, they do not require much staff and they take a large amount of energy.
The average American’s energy bill could increase from 25% to 70% in the next 10 years without intervention from policymakers, according to Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Jack Kemp Foundation.
A least 10 states are currently losing $100 million or more in taxes from data centers, according to an April report from Good Jobs First.
Data centers often require politicians to sign non-disclosure agreements during the proposal process, including keeping the name of the technology company involved along with the details of a project secret.
The secrecy occurred during the process of building a recent Indianapolis data center, according to WFYI, while the names have leaked of developers involved in several Wisconsin data center projects where state lawmakers are asking to create a data center exception to state laws on property tax captures at the sites to lure the projects to the state.
“These data centers are so big and so valuable and such a prize for a community that (state laws capping TIFs) really creates a problem,” said Wisconsin Sen. John Jagler, R-Watertown.
Virginia currently has a backlog of data center projects as they complete interconnection studies to ensure they can safely attach to the energy grid.
Projects needing more than 50 megawatts of power often require transmission-level access, which adds federal oversight from PJM, the regional grid operator for Virginia and 12 other states.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s new budget is set to spend $114.2 billion, a 15% spending increase compared to last biennial budget, according to a report from Wisconsin’s Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
The number is an increase from the $111.1 billion initial estimate as the Wisconsin Legislature is expected to take up the budget today. The Senate is schedule to meet on the budget this morning, followed by the Assembly.
The last Wisconsin budget represented an 11% increase from the prior budget while the 2022-23 budget was a 7% increase from the prior budget, MacIver showed.
The budget process accelerated after Legislative leadership and Gov. Tony Evers reached a compromise Monday and the details of that compromise were part of a budget passed by the state’s Joint Finance Committee with a 13-3 vote on Tuesday.
The fiscal bureau budget analysis shows that Wisconsin will have more than $46 billion in general purpose revenue, $33.7 billion in federal revenue, nearly $16.6 billion in program revenue, $14.8 billion in segregated revenue and $3.2 billion in bond revenue over the two-year period compared to $99.3 billion in total revenue in the last biennial budget.
“This is only true because we spent a lot of the surplus instead of issuing debt so it looks like “spending” vs saving taxpayer money with less interest,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos wrote on social media in response to MacIver’s chart on budget spending increases.
The $3.2 billion in bonding is above the $700 million in bonding in the last budget, $1.7 billion in 2022-23 and $1.9 billion in 2020-21, MacIver showed.