Total waste of $1 Bil of taxpayer dollars. If the oil and gas industry want to shut down wind projects let them pay for it.
The US is a net oil exporter. If fossil fuel companies were so influential, wouldn't we expect them to be in favour of less fossil fuel production elsewhere?
Instead the what seems to be influential is the average Joe who's complaining about the price at the pump.
All the blather about Canadian "trade surplus" is actually oil.
US companies owning that infra sell that oil under market price, to their US corp divisions. The CEO, upper execs are usually American, and so their large salaries, and all corporate profits all flow to the US parent corp.
Canada of course sees some taxes per barrel of oil, and local employment, but when you remove all this, Canada has a massive trade deficit with the US
Of course for this US calls Canada trade unfair.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
Another slight tangent: the street of Hormuz being closed has them covered nicely there currently.
But that's also an unusual situation; and the US administration is also lifting sanctions on Russian oil at the same time.
My assumption is the company started getting upset at being toyed around and having their 1 billion investment completely stalled for so long. So the admin said we'll kill the wind if you do our fossil fuels instead. So shift your investment away from wind (we kill it and pay you back for what you investws) if you instead do fossil fuels. And that's what's being done.
So previously the company was spending 1billion on wind and getting some subsidies. Now they spend 2 billion, and get paid 1 billion from the tax payer. For them it's at best a wash, though likely a loss since I haven't heard they get subsidies with the fossil fules. And the tax payer instead of paying for tax credits or low interest loans or other subsidies that were part of wind power portion of the Inflation Reduction Act instead pay a full 1 billion dollars to the company.
> The Trump administration will pay $1 billion to a French company to walk away from two U.S. offshore wind leases as the administration ramps up its campaign against offshore wind and other renewable energy.
1. https://apnews.com/article/trump-offshore-wind-energy-climat...
Though it's still a significant impact to the tax payer if the new thing they're spending 1B on is private industry and not a government-owned lease.
USA hardly has the same problem, and the current admin are frankly a bunch of low-brow vicious thugs, who in my view wouldn't know a genuine security problem from a large hole in the ground.
The Swedish government is not blocking all offshore wind, but it is blocking a lot of it, specifically wind parks in areas of the Baltic Sea that could cause trouble for trying to detect Russian military activities.
I don't know what the situation looks like for Finland.
> More than 200 wind energy projects have been canned in south-east Finland due to concerns that they could disrupt military radar.
Since then the military has just become stricter.
a) Finland needing fast & accurate RADAR tracking across their 50km gulf and restricting activity in the gulf as a result. Not just wind farms, other commercial activities are restricted in the Gulf of Finland including shipping.
b) USA restricting wind farms on it's east coast (NC and NY/NJ) where the nearest land is thousands of km away and no other commercial activities are meaningfully restricted.
(If the US can't field a RADAR for early warning off the east coast that can handle wind farms on the coast, we have other problems)
If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US, then it's quite a small price to pay to block them offshore. Especially since the country is gigantic and has plenty of room inland.
Any attack on the US will be through sea or space. Both are voids and very difficult or impossible to surveil. There's a historical example in Pearl Harbor.
So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans.
Still don’t see a problem making this comparing?
Atlantic ocean: thousands of miles to the nearest land from the NE coast; unrestricted commercial activity
Baltic sea: Belligerent nation on the coast (Kaliningrad Oblast) ~100 miles away; heavily patrolled and monitored commercial activity
> If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US
I’m asserting they are not because they magically weren’t 2 years ago and the airspace on the NE coast of the US has some of the largest and most aggressive ADIZ in the world since 2001. If wind farms were a problem for RADAR/early warning systems we would have heard about it in the last 25 years.
> So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans.
Er yes... I’m sure the military groups responsible for early warning didn’t just realise that in 2025. 10 years after offshore wind farms in the area were fully operational.
Edit: I want to say that learnings from recent conflicts (especially around drones) would be a compelling argument for why we only just realised these issues, but no one has articulated that or why it’s an issue on the Atlantic coast.
Maybe there are new threats that neither you or I are aware of or understand? Secrecy is how the military operates. New and emerging threats is the exact reason which has been given by the US Department of Interior.
As for drones, at least in Finland they are investigating if land based wind power mills can be equipped with drone warning systems.
I don't buy into the hacker double think, where everything is great and glorious and rational when Europeans do it, but it's the opposite if America under Trump does it.
Are you deliberately not trying to see the difference?
Early warning systems need all the help they can get when you only have 100km to your threats (ie. the baltic sea); when you have the entire Atlantic you don’t need that.
US early warning systems are great because they have 1000s of kilometers of space.
As other commenters have already pointed out to you, the Nordic countries do allow wind farms in:
- Gulf of Bothnia (Sweden + Finland)
- Kattegat (Sweden)
- Noregian sea (Norway)What does those three seas you mentioned have in common? They have Nordic coastline on both sides. Meaning that nobody can hide in radar shadow, because they'll be seen from the other coast.
> US early warning systems are great because they have 1000s of kilometers of space.
Not if there is a disturbance in the way. You know how signals work. Everything behind the disturbance will be in shadow, stretching for as far as you please. The ocean is a giant dark void, and your enemy can be anywhere and go anywhere.
The Swedish defense minister has specified the threat to be cruise missiles in their decision to ban and block offshore wind farms. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has the same reason for their national security concerns. With a cruise missile you have to get close before launching, as compared to ICBMs which have no limits in range.
And just out of curiosity: Why don't they build these wind parks inland in the great plains? Too much energy loss from distance to consumers?
You should check out the Norwegian Sea?
> And just out of curiosity: Why don't they build these wind parks inland in the great plains? Too much energy loss from distance to consumers?
Don't worry, this administration has been canceling those projects too: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trump-c...
(This is why my stance is "bad faith" on the "national security" claim, if that wasn't clear; I know plenty on how RADARs work and it doesn't pass the sniff test)
Or be a reality denying hacker if you prefer.
Are you saying that because Sweden has to worry about Russia invading from the east, the US shouldn’t build any wind farms anywhere? That can’t be right. What do you really mean?
Please tell me you’re just yanking our chains and don’t really believe that?
They can be a thousand miles away from your coast and launch cruise missiles with more fire power than that of Pearl Harbour. If there is a radar/signal disturbance on your coast which can help them, they will take advantage of it.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/foss...
Obama pushed for the 2010 Dodd Frank reforms to rein in big banks after that.
Corporate bailouts, huge deficit spending, mega tax cuts for the mega rich, and bottomless pit defense spending have been Republican policy for the last 50 years.
Hypocrisy works, if you have an electorate that can't think critically and are addicted to "news" sources that confirm their biases.
The majority voted to move in one direction then the majority wanted to reverse it.
Both candidates weren't equally bad. That is always the situation and you must choose the least worse or best candidate.
Sounds like both candidates were terrible enough that quite a few didn't bother?
2. Not voting still results in one being elected. This isn't the same as being offered two foods you don't like and declining to eat either.
3. The judgment on the quality of the candidates is likely mostly based on misinformation and manipulation by others.
Their fault. The Republican party has been quite open about being a against environmentalism and related policies.
Yes, but the hope is that the downside happens to the people you don't like, and you somehow only get the upside.
They only get the money if they reinvest in oil and gas. It’s not just trying to kill wind, it’s actively trying to expand burning fossil fuels. We are being lead to our demise by idiots.
They aren't idiots, they are evil. They know what they are doing; enriching themselves and hoarding political power and resources. Claiming these folks are dumb rather than evil propagates the idea that we should give them some sort of leeway. In fact, we should have sent these clowns to prison 5 years or more ago.
It's literally just evil for evil's sake.
Those who aren't rich enough... yes, just pure evil. Their parents didn't hug them enough or something, and now they think that "owning the libs" is a life strategy. It's pathetic. I'd feel bad for them if they weren't causing so much harm in the process.
Unfortunately it is malice and greed, not ignorance (though Trump in particular is clearly mostly just a useful idiot puppet being lead around by others). They know climate change is real and serious impacts are imminent, this is why the US has shown interest in "taking" Greenland and Canada.
Trump being the impulsive egotist he is gave the game away too early wanting to take credit for these land grabs while still alive, but there's no way there isn't some overall plan in place as the predictable results of climate change accelerate and the world has to geographically realign through mass migrations (some of it likely to result in wars) to deal with it.
A lot of what they are doing now is to profit off the opportunities of the chaos that they themselves are accelerating.
The reality is much more complicated. The Democratic party is far from perfect (they kinda suck, in fact), and if they aren't attracting voters, "the other side is just stupid" is a useless, arrogant way to go.
The Democratic party often sounds like a bunch of elitists, and that turns off many voters, even those who might consider themselves liberal or progressive. I'll likely vote for Democrats in every election until I die, but I don't think of myself as a Democrat, and haven't registered as one in decades (fortunately the Democratic party has open primaries in California, so I don't have to declare a party).
Can you give an example of a Democrat politician making elitist statements?
How do you know this feeling isn't the result of propaganda by the Republican party and their news media supporters to paint the Democrats as elite?
A large portion of the population doesn't vote but if they understand the real danger of Trump supporters maybe that will motivate them
So I don't know what stage the project was at but by withdrawing from the deal or cancelling it, the government is going to have to pay a penalty. Is that penalty $10 million? Is it $500 million? We don't really know.
So it could be that TotalEnergies is still getting paid $1 billion but now they have to spend $600 million on some fossil fuel project. But in doing so the government has essentially paid a $400 million break penalty. You see what I mean?
I don't believe for a second that the government didn't lose money on this political cancellation. The fossil fuel project is just a way to hide that and save face (IMHO).
> TotalEnergies has committed to invest approximately $1 billion—the value of its renounced offshore wind leases—in oil and natural gas and LNG production in the United States. Following their new investment, the United States will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar, up to the amount they paid in lease purchases for offshore wind. Under this innovative agreement driven by President Donald J. Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda, the American people will no longer pay for ideological subsidies that benefited only the unreliable and costly offshore wind industry.
> For its part, TotalEnergies will invest $928MM, on the following projects in 2026:
The development of Train 1 to 4 of Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas; The development of upstream conventional oil in Gulf of America and of shale gas production. Following TotalEnergies’ $928 million in investments in affordable, reliable and secure U.S. energy projects, the United States will terminate the following leases and reimburse the company
[1] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-and-totalenergies...
Anyone know what these "ideological subsidies" are that they're referring to? Were they part of the agreement that was just terminated? Or was that just a vaguely related talking point they inserted into the press release for political reasons?
To get more specific, you could say everything rolled back from the IRA as part of the BBB.
Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get out of the lease now even though they presumably thought it was a good deal for them back when they originally agreed to it. If that's true though then I don't know why neither the article nor the press release say anything about it other than in this vague allusion.
But my original complaint about editorializing was about the title the submitter wrote on HN, not the article title.
> why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office
Just reporting the contents of the press release as if it were your original reporting is worse IMO. At least reading a press release you know the source of the information and what their agenda is.
I know, of course, you are not arguing uncharitably here, so I can only assume this is the first news article you have ever read.
The US, France+India, and China have been competing over this project for decades.
These are businesses - no one cares about morals, only interests. And it is in France's interest to unlock these kinds of LNG projects.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mozambique-says-tota...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-india-sees-resta...
400,000 km is around two years for a commercial driver, isn't it?
What kind of vehicle is it though? There are battery electric vehicles available now in almost all commercial vehicle segments in Europe.
What is with this attitude of reflexively interpreting the development of alternatives as if they are mandatory ?
I did try to make that clear in the comment you replied to.
The battery technology doesn’t exist.
For example I've got a tractor that burns diesel, for effectively homeowner use. I too am not going to be replacing this piece of capital equipment any time soon (even though electrical would actually be better in a lot of regards). But since trucking is reliant on diesel and quite demand-insensistive, the Epstein war recently made diesel prices jump 60%. Whereas the fewer economically-critical vehicles there are being powered by diesel (even just the short range ones), the less that price would have spiked.
I suppose there are still some diesel generators out there, so they might burn that instead. Of course, that only makes you worse off.
Also “kilometers”? “petrol tank”? Thanks for holding three fingers up and letting me know you’re cosplaying as an American
> And even if there were, are you (tax payers) prepared to buy it for me, because I’m not due for an upgrade for about another 400,000 kilometres.
When commenting on a story about an American infrastructure project that does not affect you, your taxes, or how your taxes are implemented?
So fucking what? Keep driving your air-pollution vehicle. No one (not even Obama or Biden) is trying to take it away from you.
The Trump admin is paying them back with the understanding that TotalEnergies will reinvest the money into oil and gas operations in the US
They're now being allowed to keep the money, and not build wind farms.
Title seems accurate? It's the clear intention of the administration's actions here.
Catch 22 by Joseph Heller
> His specialty was containers, and he made a good thing out of not loading any. Ever since containerization came in, he was paid handsomely for every crate he did not touch. The more containers he did not load, the more money he was given, and he spent every penny he didn’t earn on securing more seniority on the docks to increase the amount of cargo he did not handle. He worked without rest at not working the piers. On long evenings he lingered by the hiring hall and did not sling a single hook, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that no breakbulk cargo had somehow returned.
Enjoy.
I’m not this guy or that guy. I’m just a victim of both of them. And both of them are happy to conspire against me. So until they’re willing to give the rest of us Rolexes for sitting at home I don’t see much of a difference.
> The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Just look at it as America going back to the colonial ages and then everything that's happening makes sense. The bad news is that people were willing to put up with that for over 100 year so there's no guarantee anyone will do anything for a long time.
- Assume everything will be fine and America will remain a global economic superpower.
- Plan an exit to a more serious, stable country.
- Some option in the middle of the two to hedge your bets?
You theoretically lose yield compared to the S&P average - but if you're hedging your bets against the US possibly going to shit - the S&P is unlikely to perform as well as its historic average IFF that scenario unfolds.
Seems like a better hedge than gold, but my crystal ball isn't working.
Shorter term, we need to rotate investments out of USD.
There are two obvious problems with exiting to a more stable country: (1) we'd be putting ourselves on the business end of a large gun being held by a madman (2) when things really hit the fan, will it actually be more stable for American expats?
I saw the writing on the wall long ago. I predicted all of this happening many years ago. I left the US back in 2015.
Currently in the UK, and I hope to eventually get dual citizenship. My partner is European, so that is possible too.
Thatcher: bad Invasion of Iraq: bad Brexit: bad Human Challenge Trials: good Free Speech: bad Too many immigrants: bad Revolving cascade of PMs who can’t get anything done: bad
Listing out a few - I guess I appreciate the Covid stuff. Hmm. still on the whole, I would be in the green longterm shorting everything about the UK.
The most interesting cultural export is Bonnie Blue (sign of decline).
I mostly like the US but the years since Obama have been rough
My main concern is that it might not be far enough away.
I have a feeling there may be more changes coming due to the rush of applicants, but they are incredibly unlikely to revoke anyone who successfully applies before that happens.
My guess is 2/3 of the country at lease believe in that.
> - Plan an exit to a more serious, stable country.
Only the Top 0.1% are eligible. Probably only half of them are prepared. The other half are blind.
> - Some option in the middle of the two to hedge your bets?
That's the same cohort of the half of 0.1%. These people are not betting against the US as much as they are hedging their bets. They'll remain in the US till it's clear that the downward spiral is inevitable.
I’ll wait.
On a serious note;
I’m looking at my billion dollar neighbors and they all just are citizens everywhere now. No allegiance to anything but their own pleasure.
Also, Canada. They're likely to withstand global warming better than most of the world, and would be comparatively easy to adapt to. If I didn't own a house, I'd already be working to move there, though I have recent ancestry that makes it a relatively more appealing option.
It's not likely at all if you've looked at the polls for France, Germany, the UK and Spain, and how those have been trending over the last decade.
But that is just a guess on what OP means.
Salaries in tech sector still give you higher overall quality of life than most of US can ever offer. Then you have - extremely beautiful nature at your doorstep, more top notch destinations like Italy and France just at the border, very low criminality compared to US, very good free healthcare, very good free education including top notch public universities, very well functioning social programs. One doesn't have to be ashamed their taxes go to killing innocent civilians half around the world (although at this point US population including folks here seems fine with that). And so on and on and on.
Also, you don't spend your whole active life getting it and (almost) burning out for that, 40h/week and then you can live your life and chase dreams and passions.
Quite a few swiss residents would be happy to have this (or at least some more cost control).
There's mandatory health insurance with preexisting condition coverage, but it's not free (tho it's partially tax supported, depending on location and income).
Argentina and Brazil are about the only other countries where you can almost get away with this and legalize your existence (Argentina in particular has constitution that says essentially if you survive 2 years, you are basically citizen) , although most of Africa wouldn't bother to enforce it (South Africa in particular has almost as much illegal immigration per capita as USA although with a wide band of possible error in estimates, and they can't meaningfully enforce it).
Otherwise you need investments (usually 50k+), permanent pension, top-tier education, a professional job offer, cultural/family ties, or connections with the political apparatus. Switzerland in particular is on extreme hard mode for a non-EU citizen to get citizenship.
American citizens generally do not think that they can just walk into another country and settle there, because you can't do that in the USA. A big part of what got Trump elected was that people just about everywhere, except the left wing of the political spectrum, were concerned about the scale of unauthorized immigration during the Biden administration. That does include a huge amount of asylum seekers under various programs, but even just CBP parolees at the southwest border totaled over 1.1 million July 2023 - July 2024 and that is a shitton of people (https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/08/21/u-...).
Also the USA has a literally 250 year tradition of people moving here (and an equally long tradition of fretting over how the "wrong" people are moving here). The entire history of the country is: people moved here and never stopped moving here, and along the way most of the native population were killed or exterminated by disease. You make it sound like some ill-founded 20th century liberalism run amok.
If anything, modern Europeans are too accustomed to people not migrating around. But it's worth remembering just how much migration (within and from without) had to happen before the modern European socio-ethnic layout emerged.
It’s amazing how poorly you understand their financial situation. They are possible the most privately leveraged entity on the planet by ratio
Their banking systems against their gdp is at 600%.
You couldn’t pick a worse place
New Zealand is really nice. So is Australia with free electricity.
Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland are all great. Iceland I want to live in.
Good friends live the simple life in Costa Rica and love it.
Canada has a much better quality of life, but it’s probably a bit close if the US melts.
There are a lot of options
Chinahhhh.
Uh, anywhere that hasn't collapsed?
Investment wise they are doing well.
They often own multiple homes.
They are not “smart” if they think a civil war will go down.. that’s poorly read people imo, sentiment pushed by the group that lost elections. And sooo context unaware. Could these people name any politics outside the US? Nope. Clueless, which is why they lost the election.
Some very smart friends are making investments in SA irt building factories.
And that's exactly what the question was.
You seem to consider yourself in the "smart people" ranks, so what's your big plan for adaptability?
I'm almost 50 and mostly retired except for work I like doing (producing musical events or performing).
About the time my kiddo graduated high school, I moved to a rural area far from cities, and about 18 months ago I bought some land that had primitive shacks on it.
I spend a lot of time reading history. I assume that the US fails eventually;
not because I have any illusions about surviving that house fire, have a lack of awareness of the mass death that would cause, or fantasies about how I'd be able to function in some post-US world.
That assumption comes out of watching the capitalists strip the wiring from the walls of US soft power along side watching the fact that it's 85 degrees in March at 6500 feet here... "climate isn't weather" is true, but I'm not an idiot and we didn't have a real winter this year.
The failure of the US is terrifying, not because I and my community would mourn the loss of some glorious and benevolent order, but in the way that the death of my estranged parents was terrifying:
we are no longer doing things because we're forced by the fantasy of belonging to some larger political order, but now have to choose what to do.
Having read a lot about what the US has done in the world, I believe that a) it's unethical/racist/genocidal / exploitative in almost all its actions and b) I think the only actual hope for climate change is the end of the US as a world order. I don't know if the end of that order is sufficient to fix the ecosystem, which I feel is on the verge of some calamitous changes, but it certainly seems necessary.
Not having control over that failing system, and not having a lot of fantasies about belonging to the polis associated with that system, it's perhaps easier for me to look at its failure modes more clinically than I might have when I was 25 and saw it as an impenetrable solid face; I've moved downstream from Fisher's statement, and now it's much easier to see a possibility for the end of capitalism (or at least the uni-polar US world order) than the end of the world itself.
Not that it's the actions of a bunch of angry and over-educated leftists who would bring it about, but as has always been understood by Marxists (among whom I do not count myself), the failure leading to its dissolution are the inherent contradictions of capitalism itself.
Which makes me feel amazingly hopeful, actually. I don't have any real political power (beyond my affinity group), so it's nice to know (like Duncan instead of MacBeth) that these things could maybe take care of themselves without me doing anything I don't find ethical.
Because I believe that there is a future for humans, I spend a lot of time organizing with folks even when I think the short-term goals aren't super useful: for instance, doing ICE Watch support with local folks, shooting a lot of guns with folks who understood the wisdom of John Brown, or just being available to help out folks who have politics oriented around direct action.
I have been spending most of my time clearing the scrub oak from various parts of the land where I live to make the wildland fire interface a little less terrifying. I build a pretty sturdy solar power system here. I've spent the last couple of months getting my head into programming the esp32 and its peripherals. I got a ham license and have been working on building radio systems. Hopefully I will figure out how to get an underground cistern next month, and then act on the septic permit I got last year.
Other than that, I assume that things aren't going to change much in my life time... I just sit here in my shack playing banjo and hoping for the best.
Prognostication should be illegal and all, but I suspect that Trump will probably kick off in 6 months from a stroke, the Dems will elect Newsom, and then they won't do a damn thing to change anything, and we will be fighting the facists under worse conditions when they finally find a pretty face to solidify them.
So I look forward to dying of Super Ebola-fluenza at age 65 in the middle of a mid-June snow-hurricane near Bluff, UT while supporting a bunch of anarchist 30 year-olds in a drone-powered trench line while they fight the "Western Slope Fascist Front". But I bet I'll still be driving my Tacoma to that battle...
Leaving aside the fact that offshore wind power is already a mature technology, at the current stage of human development we should be promoting this kind of clean energy as much as possible. I remember a scientist once said that resources like oil are non-renewable, and simply burning them is actually a waste. We should try to use them for other purposes whenever possible, since there are so many renewable energy sources available.
Of course, the lifespan of a country is shorter than that of oil, and the lifespan of a politician is even shorter than that of a country. That, too, is one of the tragedies of human society.
* Once a person gets elected, (USofA) democracy effectively ends.
* Many of their policies may be harmful to the country, and their promises may not be fulfilled, but there is no punishment mechanism (in the USofA).
All democratic systems are not the USofA .. the USofA hasn't progressed much since inception.
2. Should someone be held responsible for Germany’s energy problems?
3. Sanae Takaichi is the prime minister of Japan with the highest vote share in recent years. Because of her poor foreign policy, Japan’s relations with South Korea, Russia, and China have all worsened, and her approval rating is now continuously declining.Should she be held responsible for these things? Or is it enough that she can simply be voted out next time?
4. Mongolia has the second-highest proportion of prostitutes in the world(#1 is Philippines, which has a simpilar system compare to USA) . Among the countries near Mongolia, it is considered by the media to be the most free and democratic. Why is Mongolia’s system unable to solve this problem? Or is this problem something that does not need to be solved? Does nobody need to be responsible for it?
Flaws of the US system are not necessarily flaws in generic democracy, and may or may not be issues in other democracies.
Ones that can call a new election on a dime (relative to the lumbering US system) and don't fetishize a Little King absolute ruler.
Looking about, Australia (as one example) took a hard look at both the US and UK systems and ran with a hybrid of their own design - "Washminster".
Australia has shortcomings, as do all systems, but they do have the ability to churn Prime Ministers at a quick pace until they get a good one .. with no great impact on the functioning of the country, they have proportional voting - and get a wider spread than a simplistic monolithic two party standoff as a result, better seperation of Legal, Civil, Policy, and Military than currently evidenced in the US.
All the same, there are 190+ countries in the world .. and the USofA is just one - and certainly not the poster child for a well run democracy.
That's an intentional feature of representative democracy, not a bug. Letting voters micromanage every individual decision would be direct democracy.
> there is no punishment mechanism
In the next election voters can and will exact a punishment if they don't like the direction things are going. Politicians live in constant fear of this.
It is true that term limits reduce the effect of this threat somewhat, but in a system with shared governance not everyone gets term limited at the same time so there's still a strong collective effect. The issue in this case is just that too much power has been concentrated in the hands of one term limited person; the executive branch was not designed to wield this much unilateral power over domestic policy.
We still need these large scale deployments to make meaningful progress in decarbonizing.
no, the billion that is being "paid" is a refund of what Total paid in for the leases. Total paid that into the US govt in anticipation of receiving returns on that investment in the form of "clean energy subsidies".
it is not clear from what is in the news story whether Total is being compensated for the would-have-been future subsidies, or whether Total simply expects to make decent profits from fossil fuels.
if one's interest is in the "clean energy" angle, then this is a "defeat". if one's interest is in reducing govt subsidies, this could be "a win", but it's not exactly clear.
Truly, the deals this administration crafts are nonpareil!
If AI summery is to be trusted, a few other windparks got stopped that where almost done, but got completed anyway after a legal battle. Vineyard Wind 1, Coastal Virginia (CVOW), Empire Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Sunrise Wind.
Again, got it from AI, make of that what you want.
CVOW is supposed to flow first power this month, but won't be done for ~a year, Empire Wind is also end of '26/early '27, Sunrise later in 2027.
Vineyard was completed this month, and Revolution is delivering power and targets completion over the next few months.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-hous...
America: throws a decades-long, ongoing tantrum
It’s fairly reductive… but still kinda true.
A lot of the methods of subsidizing things were also quite incompetent, e.g. Solyndra. If you want to subsidize something like this you do it on the consumer side, e.g. 75% tax credit for every US-made solar panel you install, which drives demand for US-made solar panels without opening you up to scandals like that or the usual corruption where the money goes to the administration's buddies.
[1] https://energyhistory.yale.edu/president-jimmy-carters-remar...
"Our Nation's energy problem is very serious—and it's getting worse. We're wasting too much energy, we're buying far too much oil from foreign countries, and we are not producing enough oil, gas, or coal in the United States."
Energy Address to the Nation. April 05, 1979 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/energy-address-the...
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 Title V – United States Assistance to Developing Countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Act_...
Notable absent from the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978" is the word "coal". Developing countries were barred from developing nuclear technology, but were free solve their growing energy needs using coal.
But thank you for expressing your disapproval so kindly
And I say that not as some rabid renewables person. Just the insane binary thinking, regardless of the dollars and cronyism at work. There's zero room for nuance, which I guess is my biggest complaint about the world at large.
Aside: people who think climate change will be the death of us all, and sooner than later, I get it, and I fully appreciate you pushing for a cleaner and more livable world. At this point I'm just going to sit in the corner and hope you, and China, figure it out and then it spreads quickly to the rest of the world, which I think at this point is pretty much a foregone conclusion barring a nuclear war (will refrain from commenting about how the likelihood of that has ticked up the past couple of weeks in an area teeming with (sarcastically shocked this time!) fossil fuels).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_network#Climate_change_an...
Is there a single person who things Trump gives a single damn about the birds? It is obviously just a pretext.
This can be seen by the changes to the interpretation of the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) his administration made in 2017 during his first term.
Briefly, they said it only prohibited intentional killing of birds. So say I wanted to pave over some wetlands that are a crucial nesting grounds for some birds that are covered by the MBTA to build a parking lot.
Before, the near universal interpretation of the MBTA by nearly everyone in any of the countries that are a party to the treaty (US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) was that I can't put my parking lot there.
Under the Trump interpretation as long as I'm not building my parking lot there to intentionally kill the birds I can do it.
This was overturned in court in 2020. Just before leaving office in 2021 they tried to again make that the interpretation.
Wind turbines are an issue but approximately 0% of the 30% decline in US birds since the 1970s
Edit: to be specific to Trump, funding for bird conservation has been an issue under his administrations and he's weakened things like migratory bird treaty act. Obviously he doesn't care about birds and the bird community is very frustrated with him
As you said, that has nothing to do with the actual preference for fossils vs. turbines, but a great point nonetheless.
Fossil fuels also kill millions of animals every year (not just birds), and harm the health of humans. Even ignoring the long-term effects of CO2, fine particulates cause respiratory problems, higher blood pressure, and can cause cancer. The tricky bit is you can draw a straight line from the burning of coal to any particular (heh heh) death, it is just a statistical shift in health outcomes.
Anyway, all of that absolutely dwarf the birds getting killed by wind farms.
Also, it turns out that bird flight patterns are very stable from year to year, so they study flight patterns, and place the windmills out of the way.
and the noise causes cancer
An honest question - what the heck did you expect? Some sophisticated rational discussions instead of dumb ego tantrums?
You can't do that here. We've banned this account.
So in all seriousness, if we could get a significant fraction of the young people who are negatively impacted by these policies to actually vote against the people enacting them we could see real change. But if we keep telling them everyone believes in this stuff and your vote doesn't count and so on then nobody will do anything about it until it's too late and we're shooting at or throwing rocks at each other.
I don’t know if you can fix lazy. Turning out new voters basically happens once a generation. The rest tell themselves tales that their vote could never matter, and in doing that, subtly endorse the status quo.
It takes no effort to be cynical, I can tell myself "everything sucks and I shouldn't care because nothing matters anyway" and justify not doing anything I want. I can justify not voting, I can justify not helping someone if I see them struggling on the street, I can justify not even improving myself.
In the last couple years I have been trying my best to override my cynical tendencies because ultimately I think that they are bad for me. I vote in every election I am able to because even if it's infinitesimal, I at least tried to do something to avoid whom I deem bad people getting into office.
Someone only tuning into general elections and making this complaint is either not intellectually there or plain lazy. Very few places in this country have zero competitive elections on the ballot. And none exist where calling electeds and showing up to advocate don’t move the needle. Doing those things takes effort, however, and I concede that for a lot of people that effort isn’t worth it since they’re comfortable enough—personally—with the status quo.
The flip side is that leaves a lot more room for everyone else. It’s genuinely surprising how accessible power in America is once you start wielding it. That sucks when nobody is watching but a few paid interests. It gets interesting when you find yourself, repeatedly, as the only person in the room with the levers.
In practice that "competition" you seem so taken by produces nice sound bites and some column inches on whatever culture war rag is being waved in the face of the citizenry, and literally nothing of substance that addresses any of the myriad slow burning economic and systemic crises that have been building for the last 40 years.
Using agriculture as a microcosm for the larger economy there has been nothing proposed much less ratified to address the complete chokehold Monsanto, John Deer, Cargill, and Tyson Foods have on every aspect of the agricultural industry . And they've had literal decades to make a move.
Princeton University released a study 16 years ago that concluded the US was a de facto oligarchy and if anything legislative capture has only deepened in the US since then. Hell at the local level I've watched the county planning board float a ballot initiative to greenlight a major construction project which was soundly rejected by local voters. Net result: 5 years later they broke ground on the project anyway. So you can tell me there's movable needles out there until you're blue in the face, let's see some reciepts.
Quick question: how many _months_ total in the last quarter century have the Dems had the Presidency, Senate, and House at the same time.
The answer is 47. Forty seven total months. Out of 300. We got the ACA (Obamacare) and the Inflation Reduction Act during those brief time periods, too.
I'm not convinced. The reason why many of these people don't vote is because they don't think Trump is that bad. They probably don't agree with everything, but that's true no matter who is in office.
> I know this US government is fully-committed to fossil fuels and about as rabidly anti-renewables as can be,
The narratives work though, that is the sad reality. News anchors and the public are stuck in a loop about "children being forced to change sex, woke, climate hoax, but her e-mails, but Biden, ...", anything but what is happening at the crime scene.
- Trump received $4B in bribes last year.
- Widespread arrests and murder / deportations of US citizens.
- Federal agents routinely kidnap pregnant child abuse victims so they can be transported to Texas where they're denied health care + forced to carry their assailant's child to term.
- Blowing up fishermen + using the footage in weird 80's movie montage propaganda films.
- Installing censors at most news organizations in the US.
And literally hundreds of comparably bad stories. They arrive at a rate of 2-3 per day, and have been for over a year.
Perhaps they try to please the US government. A previous total CEO "maintained complicated relations with the United States". He died in a plane crash accident. Was it an accident or a murder, perhaps the current Total CEO prefers to be safe than dead.
https://www.france24.com/fr/20160714-margerie-deces-enquete-...
They've funded massacres in 2021 [0] in order to unlock the $20 Billion Cabo Delgado LNG deal [1] in Mozambique. Greenwashing is the least of their worries.
I've found French business culture to be extremely refreshing compared to their DACH peers - French business norms tend to be much more pragmatic, and will try to maintain strategic autonomy by hook or by crook.
[0] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gw119ynlxo
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mozambique-says-tota...
It's very important that Windmills and 5G antennas do not spray Covid19 on proud patriotic americans
The energy part is incidental.
The White House’s Bet on Fossil Fuels Is Already Losing - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-10-28/white-... | https://archive.today/vpvch - October 28th, 2025
Gas-Turbine Crunch Threatens Demand Bonanza in Asia - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-07/gas-tu... | https://archive.today/z4Ixw - October 7th, 2025
AI-Driven Demand for Gas Turbines Risks a New Energy Crunch - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-bottlenecks-gas-turb... | https://archive.today/b8bhn - October 1st, 2025
(think in systems)
(i track global fossil generation production capacity as a component of tracking the overall rate of global energy transition to clean energy and electrification, but some of my resources are simply an excel spreadsheet)
Point them north and you'll increase Earth's axial tilt.
If they can burn down the EU in that ongoing crisis, they don't care.
That's likely the strategy the administration is running.
Thus far, it is incredibly expensive, at a time when solar and wind generation is cost-competitive with fossil-fuel plants which don't employ CCS. It is simply a dead end. You can generate more renewable energy, and store it, for far less than it takes to equip and operate CCS in conjunction with a fossil-fuel-fired plant. Only direct government subsidy makes it viable for a vanishingly small amount of GHG emissions.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
Also "clean coal" is not a type of coal being burnt (although that does matter too) but pollution control systems added to coal plants.
Anthracite, in these regards, is very different from bituminous coal.
Yeah, so does wood, which is horribly polluting.
Oh boy can't wait for the reenactment of third reich intervening peacefully in czechoslovakia, for their own safety and wellbeing of course, and not at all for the resources they're hoarding, the filthy hoarders.
Wouldn’t do anything to the prices of imported products since the entire intl supply chain would be subject to even higher prices, but would reduce pressure at the pump
Or we could, you know, pull energy out of the air and sun, a strategy which will be viable until our star dies.
I'm quite confident cheap renewable alternatives will make the tar sands inviable far before they run out.
Fossil fuels were already an inferior energy source when oil was $60/barrel. Electrification has been moving fast and accelerating, even at the pre-energy crisis prices.
Now? Current events are likely to take fossil fuels out back and give 'em the Old Yeller treatment with surprising speed.
So, how many billions of newly printed debt is Trump willing to throw at the problem to keep those subsidies up so that he can be sheltered from the scary windmills?
https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/fossil-fuels-fall-be...
Renewables are cheaper to build out, and we're facing a massive energy shortage. We need to be building renewable production as quickly as possible just to keep up with demand.
Insisting that we use obsolete, expensive and dirty technologies while the rest of the planet modernizes is just dumb.
Wind bad? Solar good?
https://oilprice.com/Company-News/TotalEnergies-and-Holcim-L...
Pouyanné is only 62 years old. If, as I hope, there are criminal trials in the future for those responsible for recklessly endangering life on this planet, then I hope that he is still alive and that statements like this form part of the prosecution. Unfortunately Trump will almost certainly be long dead by then.
> redirect those funds towards fossil fuel production [...] > US interior secretary [says] the deal was worth "nearly $1 billion
The rest of the comments here... yep.
Well hopefully when Trump is gone NY remembers this and tells Pouyanné to screw when they put out bids to restart the project.
This level of doomerism is absurd. Of course the US will survive this administration. I blame the news for making every breathe by whichever opposition seem like the next WWIII.
That is gone my friend, with the wind like a sulfuric fart, for good. US is becoming a global terrorist and enemy #2 of free world and certainly whole Europe (right after its biggest and only 'friend', russia which coincidentally keeps trying to make you a thing of the past). This comes from somebody who strongly believed in your role in global hegemony despite your numerous well documented fuckups in the past. All on the whims of one visibly mentally sick man, with absolutely nobody standing up to him despite nobody really believing in any of that bullshit. No principles, just plain greed and firm fuck-the-rest approach. Right now, if Europe needs a strong big ally it will be #1 China, and then... nothing.
The fact you voted him in, and he still has massive support, and there has been 0 overthrow attempts of the biggest traitor to US in its history tells me and everybody else in the world many things, but nothing positive. Even if next election, if they will happen, will have 98% win of the democracts with that ridiculous unfair and undemocratic system of yours, it won't change a permanent shift that started and keeps happening. US has no real allies, in same vein russia or China has no real allies.
Empires rise and fall, inevitably, there was never a reason to think US would be an exception.
Something misfunctioning doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. A massive economy, industry and war machine are still here. Pretending that doesn’t exist because it doesn’t work the way we like is an expression of exasperation, not a description of reality.
Those things are exactly what destroyed the nation. The military industrial complex and the billionaires who removed the teeth from institutions that used to prevent the accumulation of power (see also: antitrust litigation against Standard Oil). Those entities are now in complete control and democracy is nothing but a sham, a clown show between two faces of the same coin.
The US as a country didn't fail with Trump. It failed when Microsoft got away scot-free. This was the biggest sign that the country was no longer a serious entity, because a serious entity would try to preserve its own power, while the United States of Burgers is something to be sold to the highest bidder.
You're confusing the destruction of the dream of a nation with the desrtruction of the nation per se. The Roman Republic's fall was the destructionn of a dream. Those who thought they were witnessing the destruction of a nation, on the other hand, were dead wrong.
In the middle of a war he started over war. No less. If his base wanted cheap gas, they are not going to get it.
So far Trump hasn't done much to prevent solar farms from being built, it's only wind turbines that he's exacting his vengeance on like some sort of modern day Don Quixote.
The evidence we do have is that republicans have had a party vendetta against clean energy for decades, and their current leader has had a personal vendetta specifically against wind turbines, also for decades.
Just the facts, please. Or your beliefs, if you want -- but just because you state that you "believe" something, doesn't make it a fact, like you claimed.
Unless you were stating it was a fact that you believed that claim? The wording you used was a bit convoluted there.
In the future, it'd be better if you don't represent your beliefs and opinions as fact [1], and didn't try to preemptively portray anyone who doesn't share your beliefs as counterfactual and politically-motivated [1].
The $1B were a refund. Net exchange ~$0.
Building out fossile fuel production shifts oil revenue from various dictatorships around the world to the US in this case. That's a good thing. I wish we in Europe produced more gas ourselves instead of being highly dependent on other countries.
This does not mean higher gas demand, which is what matters for CO2 reduction.
It’s already questionable to build fossil fuel capacity at today’s prices. In 10 years it won’t make any financial sense. In 20 you’d be laughed out of the room.
Why waste money on a dying technology? It’d be like mining bitcoin
There is of course also an argument about national security, not being at the whim of some Iranian dictator. So some form of government investment would be justified, but not necessary IMO.
Also USA us doing nothing relevant to reduce gas demand like CO2 cap and trade or CO2 based tariffs.
At this rate buy Chinese will be a more moral choice than buy American by next decade.
In Europe you only have the same parties/"uniparty" in power all the time. Many people never had a representative they voted for.
I understand the nuance about the US voting system. But when I look at the outcomes, the US seems way more democratic than Europe.
Re gas demand: Renewables are cheaper than fossile fuels. They will obviously win out in a free market. No subsidies needed.
Theses wind farms have not even started construction yet. Once Don Quixote is out of office, some future administration undoubtedly will start wind farm construction.
I've spent my entire life not building any windmills and nobody's paid me a billion dollars for it yet.
Not sure why we’re building offshore wind plants when land based gas plants provide cheaper energy. We need to be reducing the cost of living for working people and not raising it. Our goal should be to reduce people’s cost of living and we should align our actions towards those goals.
Most people are cost sensitive!
There's also the externality of paying for the natural gas, which is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher energy bills.
It probably also makes sense to include the $800M we are burning per day right now on patriot missiles (assuming the stockpile hasn't been depleted yet).
Paying for the gas itself would not be an externality. Externalities are for example the worldwide damages caused by extreme weather which is caused by climate change, health problems caused by air pollution or the usage of clean water for cooling
Fueling the power plant is an externality for the people building the power plant. You could argue that it increases their costs, but these things are monopolies, with prices set by bought-off politicians. The plant + fuel costs much more than renewables (so ratepayers get screwed), but I'll wager the plant without fuel is still a bit less than solar or wind construction.
It's an argument that's always reeked of whale shit to me. If they really cared about marine sound pollution they'd go after super yachts first.
> We're partnering with TotalEnergies to unleash nearly $1 billion that was tied up in a lease deposit that was directed towards the prior administration's subsidies
What's the deal with this lease deposit and how does "freeing it up" equate to the US govt "paying" TotalEnergies that amount?
Is this a situation where TotalEnergies put down a 1B deposit to lease the seashore from the government and the government is now canceling that agreement and giving them their money back? How does it relate to "subsidies"?