Trump Bribes Company $1 Billion To Stop Offshore Wind

Maybe he hates offshore wind projects because breezes
mess up his hair? In any event, Trump, having lost
court battles to stop offshore wind installations,
has resorted to basically bribery with taxpayer dollars.

As we've talked about here a few times, Donald Trump hates wind generation. Especially offshore wind. 

He tried new anti-offshore wind regulations and pronouncements, only to be repeatedly shot down by the courts. So, Trump has gone straight to corruption. He's now successfully stopped an offshore wind installation with what amounts to a $1 billion bribe. 

Here it is from CNN:

"The Trump administration announced it will pay nearly $1 billion to French energy giant TotalEnergies in exchange for the company abandoning plans to build offshore wind farms in the Atlantic Ocean and instead pursue fossil fuel project in the U.S." 

Yes, that's 'your tax dollars not at work. Trump is using tax revenue - and a lot of it to - pay somebody to not do something. 

It's not a direct raid on the treasury. Instead the Trump administration is paying back TotalEnergies for federal leases it bought during the Biden administration. So the money Biden raked in for the federal government is getting pissed away all because wind turbines are against Trump's aesthetics. 

The Trump gang has already stopped approving federal permits for renewable energy projects. That move killed offshore wind projects that were in early development. 

This goes against the wishes of numerous clean energy companies and several state governments. Those entities think offshore wind is a win-win: It generates badly needed electricity while also avoids the fossil fuels that contribute to ever-worsening climate change crisis. 

The more recent bribe, as I insist on calling it,  ries to make sure companies can't continue building under any future administration that has a friendlier attitude toward offshore wind, as CNN reports. 

In any event, Trump's bribe means 4 gigawatts of electricity will not be generated for houses and businesses in the U.S. 

TotalEnergies doesn't even get to decide how to spend the bribe money. To keep the Orange One happy, the company will develop a new liquified gas plant in Texas that will help export U.S. LNG overseas to Europe, per their agreement with the Trump administration.   

The company will also do some oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. and shale oil projects elsewhere in the U.S. 

Burn that fossil fuel, baby!  103 degrees during March in Kansas isn't nearly hot enough. Gotta get that climate really boiling. 

The deal is "an outrageous misuses of taxpayer dollars to prevent Americans from having clean, affordable power exactly when they need it the most," said Ted Kelly of the Environmental Defense Fund.

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum says offshore wind is "one of the most expensive" forms of energy and is only produced when wind is blowing. I guess he never heard of batteries that store electricity and keep the juice flowing until the wind blows again. Which it almost always does in the wide open ocean. 

It's true offshore wind power is expensive because it's, well, offshore. But wind has no fuel costs. And CNN points out that states negotiate set power price agreements with offshore wind producers that don't fluctuate like natural gas and oil does. 

As with every stunt Trump and his minions pull, I see lawsuits coming with this. 

Canarymedia com explains:

"....offshore wind experts said that no process exists for Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)  to return the funds it collects from leasing federally controlled waters.

'There are significant questions about under what authority Interior is doing this,' said Elizabeth Klein, who led BOEM from 2023 to 2025 during the Biden administration"

 This Orange Briberymight  create broader problems beyond encouraging fossil fuel consumption, which can only worsen climate change. As NPR points out:

"Industry analysts say the agreement threatens to undermine business confidence in the United States by exerting unprecedented executive power to influence the private sector,"

Back in the day, like it or not, Republicans preferred to leave business alone. Let them do their thing with a little regulation or government interference as possible. So much for that. MAGA has turned that on its head. 

NPR's reporting goes on to explain that by stopping projects he doesn't like, Trump risks messing up infrastructure spending across the economy, not just in offshore wind. The uncertainty this creates could make infrastructure projects move more slowly and become expensive. 

The uncertainly goes into fossil fuel plant and oil production projects, which Trump keeps telling us he loves so much.

"When you're building a power plant or thinking about oil production, you're thinking not just about the current administration, you're thinking about the next couple of decades.....And the pendulum swing is a real policy risk," said Timothy Fox of ClearView Energy Partners. 

All this is one of Trump's few "skills."  His chaos causes so much uncertainty that investors, companies, and just regular people don't know what the next best course of action is.  Ultimately, nothing gets done.

Except Trump and his oligarch friends get ever more richer at our expense.   

New York Takes Vermont's Lead, Establishes Climate "Superfund" Law

Following Vermont's lead from last year, New York
Gov. Kathy Hochul signed legislation creating a
"climate superfund" to force fossil fuel polluters
 to help pay for climate related damages in the state.

 Vermont lawmakers made waves last spring when the state adopted a law that requires fossil fuel companies and other big polluters to pay for climate related damage all those emissions have and will cause the state. 

The law faces an uncertain future because, as you might imagine the fossil fuel companies are not happy with this idea and will sue. 

But other states have taken a keen interest in Vermont's law, and it's starting to snowball. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law a bill similar to Vermont's earlier this month. 

Per the Washington Post: 

"The bill...... would allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75 billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contributions to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018.

That money would be used to pay for the damage already done to homes, roads and bridges - and help cover the cost of preparing for increasingly extreme weather in the years come."

Fossil fuel lobbyists reacted to the New York legislation pretty much the same way they did when Vermont passed their own climate superfund law.  WaPo again:

"New York's law is almost certain to face legal challenges. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's powerful lobbying group, sent state lawmakers a memo in 2023 saying the proposed bill was unconstitutional. A could would probably strike it down, the group did, because it was preempted by federal law and sought to hold companies responsible for the actions of society at large."

Plus, there's the ever-present problem of the incoming Trump administration. Sigh. 

I think this type of law has merit, but buckle up for a long, long legal fight over this. 

 

California, Maryland and Massachusetts have been considering similar laws, but so far no climate superfund bill has made it to the governors desk in any of those states. 

 

 

History Made: Vermont Now First State To Hold Fossil Fuel Companies Liable For Climate Change

Vermont just enacted a first in the nation climate superfund
law, which bills fossil fuel companies for climate
related disasters and costs, like last July's severe
flooding across the Green Mountain State. 

 The "Climate Superfund" idea in Vermont we've been watching is now a done deal, making us the first state to hold fossil fuel giants accountable for effects of climate change. 

Basically, what Vermont has now enacted is a make fossil fuel and other industries pay up for climate related disasters that have cost us big money. 

Republican Gov. Phil Scott had threatened to veto the measure, but instead last week, he just didn't sign it, meaning it went into law.

In Vermont, if a governor doesn't sign a bill instead of signing or vetoing it, that just signals the governor's relative displeasure or ambivalence about a proposal. 

As the Associated Press reports:

".....he is very concerned about the costs and outcome of the small state taking on 'Big Oil' alone in what will likely be a grueling legal fight. But he acknowledged that he understands something has to be done to address the toll of climate change.

'I understand the desire to seek funding to mitigate the effects of climate change that has hurt our state in so many ways,' Scott, a moderate Republican in the largely blue state of Vermont, wrote in a letter to lawmakers."

Still, give Scott credit.  He's probably one of the few Republicans anywhere who isn't have a screaming fit about annoying those poor little fossil fuel companies, most of whom have been making record profits later. 

That's one of the reasons the Vermont legislature went this route. They smelled blood. Of course the much bigger reason Montpelier took this step is because that city - and much of the rest of Vermont - was inundated last summer by some of the worst flooding in the state's history.   

Floods and other climate extremes have been becoming more common in Vermont with climate change. That, of course follows global trends as the world's climate continues to go off the rails.  

One piece of the legislation that appeased Scott a little was a provision in the law that the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources just report back to the Legislature on the feasibility of the effort, the AP reports. 

I'll be really interested to see how the state calculates the financial effects of climate change in Vermont and who is to blame. Here's a rundown of how that will work, as the AP describes it:

"Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, would provide a report by Jan, 15, 2026 ton the total coset to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995 to Dec. 31, 2024 

The assessment would look at the effects on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing and other areas. The state would use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company."

Sounds really complicated, but Vermont State Treasurer Mike Pieciak said he is up to the task.  A state treasurer ought to be good at math, but Pieciak better be a genius at it. 

I don't know all the mechanisms of this plan.  Like, how do you pick out which part of a disaster was "caused" by climate change and what part might have happened anyway?  After all, in general, climate change often is not causing weather extremes. It's just making them even more extreme than they otherwise would be. 

Litigation over this is inevitable.  Predictably, the fossil fuel industry is not amused by all this stuff going on with those crazy Vermonters. 

The American Petroleum Institute sniffed that the Vermont law "retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large, and is preempted by federal law."

Before you say the American Petroleum Institute has a slam dunk case, remember, selling cigarettes is and always was legal in the U.S. Yet, laws went after tobacco companies for the harm their products caused. 

I get it they're not exactly the same thing, but the model might just work. 

Anyway, the American Petroleum Institute also informs us that the Vermonters behind this proposal and law are un-American heathens bent on destroying the United States. "This punitive new fee represents yet another step in a coordinated campaign to undermine America's energy advantage and the economic and national security benefits it provides," said an API spokesman. 

Huh.

You can definitely accuse the Vermont Legislature of being liberal, and it's fair to disagree with some or even all that they do. But I haven't seen in the news any of our fine lawmakers saying the want to destroy America and our way of life.

Maybe I missed the fine print or something. 

There's going to be a lot of fighting and twists and turns over this, and some lawyers are probably going to make a lot of money either supporting or fighting this climate superfund idea.

They main thing to watch is whether Vermont started a whole movement much bigger than the taming of the cigarette companies over the decades. Or will this be a flash in the pan. I'm betting against the flash in the pan scenario, since other states are considering following Vermont's lead.

This is not just entertainment, folks.  This is a big deal, if only because climate change is the ultimate big deal. 

  

Vermont House Passes Superfund" Law, Could Become First In Nation

Vermont is now close to becoming the first state in the
nation to establish a climate "Superfund" law that would
demand money from oil giants to pay for climate-
related disasters, like last summer's flooding.

 Back on January 31, I told you about legislation in Vermont that would create a "Superfund" to pay for recovering from climate-related disasters in the Green Mountain State.  

The money would come from large firms like oil producers and others who emit or at least cause to emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases.

This week, the Vermont House was approved in Montpelier by a veto-proof majority.   It now goes to the Vermont Senate for a final review before landing on Gov Phil Scott's desk.

As Vermont Public reports, Scott has vowed to veto the bill, saying he's worried about the cost to taking Big Oil to court and how long it would take to pry money out of these corporations to pay for this Superfund thing.  

A few Republican legislators are also opposed to the proposal, saying we are all complicit, really. Did you drive to work this morning? Unless you have an EV, you emitted greenhouse gases purchased from Big Oil. 

A two-thirds vote in both the Senate and House would be needed to override the veto. The House vote this week is veto-proof if pretty much everybody there votes the same as they did this week after the potential veto. We'll have to see what the Senate does. The Senate did pass the preliminary version of the bill in March by a 26-3 vote. That's veto-proof if history repeats, which seems likely. 

There's no question that disasters made worse by climate change are costing Vermonters big bucks. Last summer's flooding is thought to have caused more than $1 billion in damage. Some people are still displaced from their homes because of that event. 

Other events in the past year, like another big flood in December and twin, powerful wind storms in January, added to the toll on Vermont. 

Meanwhile, most of the largest oil companies in the world raked in record profits over the past few years. 

Proponents of the climate Superfund want a piece of that pie to pay for bolstering ourselves against future climate disasters and paying for ones we've already had. 

If enacted, Vermont would become the first state to enact this type of law. Because we are first, climate activists are watching this whole thing closely.  They hope it opens the floodgates for more such laws elsewhere. Already, other states like California, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar bills.   

We're getting close to the end of the Vermont legislative session for this year, so the final denouement is coming on this soon. 

So, watch this space for an update on whether this gets enacted or not.  

A Vermont "Superfund" For Climate Disasters?

A Cambridge, Vermont home damaged by flooding last
July.  Vermont lawmakers have introduced legislation
to create a "climate superfund" to help with climate
related disasters. The money would come from 
fossil fuel businesses, who would surely sue
if this law is enacted. Lawmakers say they
are confident the bill will withstand court scrutiny.

If Vermont is a supposed refuge of sorts from climate change, why are disasters caused by this phenomenon costing us so much?"  

More importantly what are we going to do about that cost?   

The Vermont Legislature is among those asking those questions. And they have another question: Who should pay? 

Here's what VTDigger reports:

"A slew of state lawmakers - 20 out of 30 senators and 87 out of 150 representatives - are invoking a precept from kindergarten. The person who made the mess should clean it up."

The Vermont legislature is looking at you, fossil fuel industry. 

SUPERFUND

The legislations really isn't that much different from the federal pollution Superfund idea that's been running for decades. Big businesses that create hazardous waste pay for pollution cleanup. 

The climate superfund idea means we now have two companion bills, one in the Vermont House the other in the Senate, that would establish a climate change "superfund." 

Vermont Public explains how this would work:

"Companies that produced more than 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2000 and 2019 would have to pay a share of what climate change has cost Vermont, based on how much the company contributed to global emissions during the same period." 

Environmental groups in the state have been lobbying for this sort of thing and are happy the bills have been introduced. 

There's no doubt climate change is already costing a lot of money. The big flood in July - very likely supercharged by a warming world - will end up costing Vermonters more than $1 billion, notes Vermont Public. 

Vermont Public also reminds us that a 2021 University of Vermont study estimated climate change fuels flooding in just the Lake Champlain basin could end up costing $5 billion by the end of this century.

Never mind flooding elsewhere in the state, larger storms, more wind damage, searing heat and other hazards brought on by a changing climate. 

But how much money should Vermont collect and how do we do the accounting?

The answer in the legislation is somebody will have to do some detailed and accurate accounting of the damage in Vermont due to climate change. The legislation says that somebody is Vermont State Treasurer Mike Pieciak, and the would  have to get that accounting done by 2025. 

Pieciak told Vermont Public he's excited about the task and he thinks he and his staff can gather an accounting of damages in the Green Mountain State due to climate change.  Pieciak says he expects the accounting to be airtight and able to withstand litigation.

It'll have to. 

The legislation might be a great idea, but good luck collecting the money. 

 More from VTDigger: 

"The idea is to target companies that produced fossil fuels between the start of 2000 and the end of 2019 resulting in the emission of at least one billion metric tons of greenhouse gasses. Each of those companies would be held liable for its proportion of the cost of those emissions to the state. The 'cost recovery' payments would go into the 'climate superfund' earmarked for infrastructure projects that help Vermont adapt to climate change."

Awesome! 

But it's not like the fossil fuel industry is going to start enthusiastically writing checks to the State of Vermont.

First of all, VTDigger says Vermont's governor, Phil Scott, isn't sure he's on board with this. The Republican is rather pro-business, so this idea might give him pause.

On the other hand, Scott isn't exactly enthusiastic about relying on taxpayers to fund recovery from climate disasters. He says (reasonably enough) that Vermonter are taxed enough. 

No doubt Scott is aware of this little tidbit from VTDigger: 

 "According to the ominously-named Vermont Atlas of Disaster report, the Green Mountain State ranks fifth in the nation for per-capita spending on climate disasters. And conversations among lawmakers this year make clear that Vermont taxpayers don't have much more to give."

Let's say Scott decides to sign the bill, or he vetoes it but the legislature overrides the veto. Then what?

I guarantee the businesses Vermont targets for payments would sue.  However, at least some Vermont Legislators are cautiously optimistic.

VTDigger again: 

"Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, who is a lawyer himself, said lawmakers 'can't judge, in the end, whether this is going to make it all the way through the court cases." Still, he said lawmakers have worked with the Vermont Attorney General's Office and legislative counsel, 'and we're all confident that we have a very good case to make.'"

Well, maybe in the lower courts. 

But I see this sort of thing making it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The current makeup of that court is probably the most right wing in memory, so they won't go for it.  

Still, I have to give lawmakers credit for trying.  It's time, anyway, to keep pushing for solutions rather than just giving up. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court does prove unsympathetic. 

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a climate superfund bill at the federal level which would act much like the Vermont idea.   Other states like Maryland, New York and Massachusetts have also introduced climate superfund bills, says Vermont Public. 

Court cases and litigation will surely postpone Vermont's climate superfund and similar plans in other states and on the national level. 

However, I doubt the push to make the fossil fuel industry pay for climate change will go away. It'll be a long slog, like the battle to make the tobacco industry pay for the harm it caused. 

Climate change is obviously an even bigger deal than the health havoc created by cigarettes.