Trump Finds New Way To Stop Clean Energy: "Security Concerns" Over Offshore Wind

The Trump administration's latest tack to stop offshore
wind generation is to claim "national security"
Not everyone is buying that argument. 

 The Trump administration has found a new excuse to halt his nemesis: offshore wind installations 

He hates "clean energy" and for some reason loves just LOVES oil and coal. 

He's put out all kinds of false narratives about wind turbines causing cancer, killing off all birds and, being unreliable because the wind doesn't always blow. Maybe he's never heard of batteries? 

Trump keeps losing court cases in which entities sue his administration over efforts to shut down the turbines. Now, we have the latest effort.  

Here's Fox New's lead on the report:

"President Donald Trump's Department of Interior announced on Monday that, effective immediately, leases for all large-scale offshore wind projects being constructed in the United States will be paused.

In a press release, DOI wrote that the pause is due to 'national security risks' identified by the Department of War in 'recently completed classified reports.'"

There were not many hints as to what those supposed security risks are. 

As an aside, Trump and Pete Hegseth want to call it the Department of War, but the legal name of the agency is still Department of Defense

Anyway. the Department of Interior gave these details, which aren't very detailed: 

"Today's action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our east coast population centers."

Well, that word salad doesn't help much. 

The pause on offshore wind farms affect projects off the New England, New York and Virginia coasts

The Interior Department referenced unclassified reports that large offshore turbine blades can cause "clutter" which is radar interference that can obscure moving targets or generate false radar returns. 

In some radar images, wind farms do cause clutter. For instance, on some days, you see what appears to be a persistent, stationary shower on Doppler weather radar over northeast New York. That "shower" is a large wind installation.

However, the Trump administration has been so untrustworthy, you have to wonder if this national security story is legit. Wind turbines have been around for a long time. You'd think the Defense Department would have figured out how to deal with them by now. 

This "national security threat" might be just another tactic to stop the offshore wind installations  

As the Associated Press reports:

"The pause.....is the latest step the administration has taken to hobble offshore wind in its push against renewable energy sources. It comes two weeks after a federal judge struck down President Donald' Trump's executive order blocking wind energy projects, calling it unlawful."

There are other indications that the "national security" might be just an excuse to scuttle wind projects. "The record of decision all show that the Department of Defense was consulted at every stage of the permitting process," said Kirk Lippold, a national security expert and former Commander of the USS Cole. 

Cole noted that the projects had been awarded permits following years of review by state and federal agencies.  You'd think the Department of Defense would have raised red flags ages ago if these wind projects were interfering with our defense capabilities. 

I imagine there will be lawsuits out of this. 

We're already hearing grumblings of some sort of court action. Probably from more than one source. 

The Conservation Law Foundation called the offshore wind development pause "a desperate rerun of the Trump administration' failed attempt to kill offshore wind."  The Foundation, in their statement, already noted courts have already rejected Trump's attempts to kill offshore wind.

Then there's this from Ted Kelly of the Environmental Defense Fund: 

"For nearly a year, the Trump administration has recklessly obstructed the build-out of clean, affordable power for millions of Americas, just as the country's need for electricity is surging.....Now the administration is again illegally kneecapping America's largest source of renewable power, especially the we need more cheap, homegrown electricity"

 Kelly said the Trump administration's actions are especially rich since they're propping up aging, expensive coal plants "that rarely work and pollute our air."

Speaking of things that rarely work, the Trump administration seems to lose most of their court cases, except in the Supreme Court, which is solidly MAGA.  The new roadblock is the "classified documents" The Interior Department claims. It sounds like it could be a way to avoid sharing documents in the discovery phase of any lawsuits.  

In any event, some lawyers are going to have a great 2026, thanks to the Trump crowd.  

Vermont Governor Trying To Scale Back Climate Initiatives

Flooding in Richmond, Vermont, July, 2023. Climate driven
disasters are increasing costing Vermonters a lot of money.
Efforts to combat greenhouse emissions also cost 
money, leading to political tension in Montpelier. 

 Vermont Gov. Phil Scott is a Republican, but he's by no means a Trump Republican

In fact, the two men do not get along with each other, at least based on Scott's past comments about the current president. 

Trump hates any efforts to fight climate change, as he considers the science a hoax.

Scott thinks climate change is a real thing, so I guess he's certain hurdled that low bar. The Vermont governor also thinks we should act to combat climate change. But it appears he thinks we've gone to far with that project. At least for now. 

As WCAX reports: 

"Gov. Phil Scott wants Vermont lawmakers to change course on fighting climate change and proposes lawmakers roll back mandates to decarbonize. For the governor, it's all about affordability. What state lawmakers choose to do or not to do will have a direct effect on what Vermonters may pay for heating oil, electric rates and more.

Environmental advocates are sounding the alarm over what they see as the state walking back on a commitment to the climate and the future."

"We say no to these rollbacks because it is a moral imperative,' said Laura Zakaras of Third Act Vermont."

Scott has long opposed some if not all the climate initiatives passed in recent years by the Vermont legislature. Democrats had a super majority, which meant anything they passed was veto-proof. So the Democrats in recent years passed a flurry of anti-climate change legislation. 

In November, Republicans made gains in the legislature, so now Scott has more power to oppose Democrats. And try to roll back some of the more ambitious climate initiatives now enshrined intoVermont law. 

It's not that Scott doesn't want to combat climate change. He does. He's seen first hand how climate-worsened disasters have made life harder for Vermonters in recent years. His tack is to develop a plan of his own to deal with climate change. 

Per VTDigger:

"'We agree on the need to reduce emissions,' Scott said when announcing the proposal at a January 30 press conference. 'But we need to be realistic about what we can do and make sure we're on a timely that makes sense, and doesn't harm Vermonters financially as a result."

One law is troublesome for both Scott, and the actual deadlines in the statute The Global Warming Solutions Act sets deadlines to reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, 2030 and 2050. That Democratic legislature overrode Scott's veto of the bill in 2020.

This Global Warming Solutions Act requires a lot of self-discipline, accountability and creativity in Vermont for it to work and signs are we might not have enough oomph to comply with it. 

There's no plan in place that would satisfy the 2030 deadline, and that could get messy. Here's why, as VTDigger reports:

"A specific measure within the law, called a legal 'cause of action,' allows citizens to sue the Agency of Natural Resources if the state isn't on track to meet its deadlines. The Conservation Law Foundation has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Agency of Natural Resources' projection that it will meet the 2025 deadline."

A Republican sponsored bill would get rid of the part of this statute that allows those lawsuits if Vermont doesn't meet those emissions deadlines. 

This is all just another example of how hard it really is to reduce emissions and combat climate change. It's costly now, and people living pay check to pay check don't have the means to pay higher taxes, or inflationary costs on other goods, like fuel, if that's what the emissions rules.

Then again, if nobody contributes to cutting emissions, it's more costly for all of us down the road. Climate change is kind of a lose/lose in that regard.   

We don't know what will happen this legislative session, of course.  Fighting climate change is a hard enough fight in tiny little localities like Vermont. 

No consider doing this on a global scale

It's daunting. 

   

 

And there's the tension that always seems to come in these potential expensive ways to deal with climate change.

It's kind of pay now or pay later. with even well-meaning 

  

  

 

Fossil Fuel Giants Lose Bid To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Them

It's beginning to look like the fossil fuel industry is 
not have an easy time in courts and with lawsuits
as they had hoped. 

 The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month shut down an attempt by fossil fuel companies to avoid a climate change lawsuit against them. 

Per Courthouse News, the lawsuit is seeking "to hold companies liable over claims of deceptive marketing about the effect of greenhouse gases.

Companies such as Sunoco, Exxon Mobile, Chevron and BP said they are facing dozens of lawsuits, leaving a vital industry at risk of owing billions of dollars over accusations it causes climate change.

The justices denied the oil and gas companies' petition without further explanation in Monday's orders list."

Frankly, I was a little surprised the seriously right leaning Supreme Court would make a decision like this, but there you go. 

This all started in 2017, when Honolulu filed suit and against the oil giants. The claim was the companies misled consumers about fossil fuel impacts on climate change. This, said Honolulu's lawsuit, led to increased fossil fuel consumption and worsened the impacts of climate change in Hawaii. 

Honolulu cited state laws in its suit but the companies wanted it all transferred to federal court. Three courts denied that wish. 

Continues Courthouse News: 

"Once the case was kicked back to state court, the companies tried to get the lawsuit dismissed. Exxon and others argue that the state courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the case involves the impact of interstate and international climate change."

That Exxon failed with this argument might have an impact on Vermont's "climate superfund" law and a similar statute just recently signed into law in New York State.

In a lawsuit recently filed against Vermont and its "Climate Superfund" law, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and oil companies contend that the law violated domestic and foreign commerce clauses by discriminating "against the important interest of other states by targeting large energy companies outside of Vermont."

I don't know whether the Hawaii case will have an influence here given there's other aspects of the lawsuit  against Vermont. Those include the contention it violates the U.S. Constitution and is pre-empted by the federal Clean Air Act. 

Maybe I'm being a bit of a Pollyanna here, but it's beginning to look like it's at least possible that the fossil fuel industry won't get as much sympathy from the courts as they'd hoped. 

 

Update To December Tornadoes: Mayfield Candle Factory Won't Reopen; Lawsuit Against Amazon

Destroyed candle factory in Mayfield, Kentucky after the 
huge December tornado. Company officials announced they
won't rebuild in Mayfield, causing a loss of about
 250 jobs. 

 The tornado-devastated city of Mayfield, Kentucky too another blow recently when the people that run the candle factory destroyed by the December 10 twister won't rebuild or reopen.

That means 250 or so people have lost their jobs.  

Mayfield was probably the hardest hit community in an unprecedented December tornado outbreak that killed 76 people in Kentucky and surrounding states.Mayfield's downtown was destroyed, as was the candle factory where dozens of people were working when the tornado struck. 

The candle factory has about 500 employees. About 250 employees will be transferred to a new candle plant in nearby Hickory, Kentucky.  Company officials told the Louisville Courier Journal that they would like to hire everybody back eventually, but didn't know when that might happen, NBC News reports.

Nine of the 100 or so people working at the candle factory died when the tornado leveled the manufacturing plant. Managers of the plant came under fire after employees said they were not allowed to leave and find better shelter in the hours leading up to the tornado. 

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has said the state has launched an investigation into the reports that employees were threatened with being fired if they left in advance of the tornado. 

Workers who made these claims have sued the factory operators, saying keeping the workers at the doomed factory failed to "provide a workplace free from serious recognized hazards," as required by Kentucky law, reports Kentucky.com.

AMAZON TORNADO LAWSUIT

Amazon warehouse destroyed by a tornado on December 10,
2021 killing six people. The estate of one of those killed is
suing Amazon citing unsafe working conditions during
the tornado emergency. 

Meanwhile, the family of one of six people who died on December 10 at an Illinois Amazon warehouse when another tornado struck has filed suit against the online giant. 

According to Reuters, the family of driver Austin McEwen, 26, filed the lawsuit, alleging that Amazon knew conditions were "highly unsafe as tornado warnings had been issued' but company officials "rolled the dice with peoples' lives to put profit over safety," said the family's attorney, Jack J. Casciato.    

The lawsuit is for multi millions of dollars, Casciato said.

Amazon officials deny the allegations, saying their building was built to code and employees were moved to safer areas when tornado warnings were issued.

Other Amazon employees dispute Amazon's attention to safety.  In December one driver told news media she was out making deliveries when tornado sirens began to wail. She asked to return to the warehouse but the manager told her to keep delivering or lose her job. This, despite the obvious danger of driving in an area under an active tornado warning. 

These two updates show that the immediate aftermath of a tornado, or any other big disaster is not the end of the story. It's just the beginning of it. For tornado victims, there will be plenty of twists and turns down the road. Many of these twists and turns will probably be painful.