Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Daily Caller

‘It’s Gonna End On Day One’: GOP Lawmakers, Fishermen Urge Trump To Keep Promise To Axe Offshore Wind

Published

6 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Adam Pack

Critics of the offshore wind industry are calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep his campaign promise of ending federal support for offshore wind on his first day in office.

Trump’s return to the Oval Office may deal the problem-riddled offshore wind industry another blow if his administration follows through on his pledge to scrap federal support for offshore wind projects during his second term. Republican lawmakers, opposed to heavily subsidized green energy, and commercial fishermen, who view the industry as an existential threat to their livelihoods, are calling on the president-elect to follow through on his campaign’s promise, which could imply ending federal subsidies and lease sales for the industry.

“We are going to make sure that [offshore wind] ends on day one. I’m gonna write it out in an executive order,” Trump told a crowd of his supporters at a campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, on May 11. “It’s gonna end on day one.”

Since January 2021, the Biden-Harris administration has approved ten offshore wind projects at commercial scale and conducted six offshore wind lease sales, including one held just last week in the Gulf of Maine that was criticized by the commercial fishing industry as part of President Joe Biden’s wider climate agenda. Offshore wind has notably suffered from inflation headwindsproject cancellations and souring public opinion despite the Biden administration’s embrace of the industry.

“I have no doubt that a second Trump administration will do the right thing for Americans by scrapping the Biden-Harris offshore wind agenda,” Republican New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a vocal critic of the offshore wind industry, told the DCNF. “These projects are a burden on our economy, harm local communities and are nothing but a political payoff to special interests. President Trump understands that true energy independence and prosperity come from American oil, gas, solar and especially nuclear energy, through a balanced energy policy — not from wasteful wind projects that put our economy and environment at risk.”

“I think it’s a very wise decision,” Republican Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, told the DCNF. “We are wasting money, and the worst part is that all that money is going to foreign wind companies because there are no American wind companies. They’re all foreign companies that are making billions of dollars off the American energy ratepayer.”

The Vineyard Wind energy project, jointly owned by a Danish investment firm and a Spanish utility, earned Republican lawmakers’ ire in July when debris from one of the project’s turbine blades — which stretches longer than the Statue of Liberty — washed up on Massachusetts’ beaches after breaking apart and falling into the ocean.

“We should never allow foreign owned companies to control our energy supply — much less harm our environment while doing it,” Harris wrote on X.

The New England Fisherman’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA), a commercial fishing industry group that organized a “flotilla protest” at the site of the broken Vineyard Wind turbine in August, is calling on the Trump administration to walk back on Biden’s goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. The group is also advocating for the incoming Trump administration to “delist unleased wind energy areas” off the coast of New England and the mid-Atlantic.

NEFSA CEO Jerry Leeman told the DCNF that he’s optimistic that the Trump administration will be “a voice of reason” on offshore wind, which he claimed would be a welcome departure from the previous administration, whom he accused of prioritizing green energy goals over fishermen’s livelihoods and the health of the marine environment.

“The incoming administration has an historic opportunity to save American workers from foreign developers, reinvigorate iconic coastal towns, and improve America’s food security,” NEFSA CEO Jerry Leeman said in a press release following Trump’s election win.

The Trump administration may also seek to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies that offshore wind projects are eligible for, which could make the industry’s continued growth off the Atlantic coast not as economically viable, according to Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute.

“I would expect the prospects of offshore wind to dim once the subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act are repealed,” Fischer told the DCNF. “The high cost of offshore wind is unavoidable. State and federal subsidies can mask the cost by shifting it to the tax base, but ultimately either ratepayers or taxpayers will bear the significantly above-market cost of offshore wind in the states that mandate it.”

Offshore wind developers and wind turbine makers’ stock prices substantially decreased on Wednesday following news of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ defeat the previous night.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request to comment from the DCNF.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Trump Orders Review Of Why U.S. Childhood Vaccination Schedule Has More Shots Than Peer Countries

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

President Donald Trump will direct his top health officials to conduct a systematic review of the childhood vaccinations schedule by reviewing those of other high-income countries and update domestic recommendations if the schedules abroad appear superior, according to a memorandum obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“In January 2025, the United States recommended vaccinating all children for 18 diseases, including COVID-19, making our country a high outlier in the number of vaccinations recommended for all children,” the memo will state. “Study is warranted to ensure that Americans are receiving the best, scientifically-supported medical advice in the world.”

Trump directs the secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS) and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to adopt best practices from other countries if deemed more medically sound. The memo cites the contrast between the U.S., which recommends vaccination for 18 diseases, and Denmark, which recommends vaccinations for 10 diseases; Japan, which recommends vaccinations for 14 diseases; and Germany, which recommends vaccinations for 15 diseases.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule.

The Trump Administration ended the blanket recommendation for all children to get annual COVID-19 vaccine boosters in perpetuity. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary and Chief Medical Officer Vinay Prasad announced in May that the agency would not approve new COVID booster shots for children and healthy non-elderly adults without clinical trials demonstrating the benefit. On Friday, Prasad told his staff at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research that a review by career staff traced the deaths of 10 children to the COVID vaccine, announced new changes to vaccine regulation, and asked for “introspection.”

Trump’s memo follows a two-day meeting of vaccine advisors to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in which the committee adopted changes to U.S. policy on Hepatitis B vaccination that bring the country’s policy in alignment with 24 peer nations.

Total vaccines in January 2025 before the change in COVID policy. Credit: ACIP

The meeting included a presentation by FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Director Tracy Beth Høeg showing the discordance between the childhood vaccination schedule in the U.S. and those of other developed nations.

“Why are we so different from other developed nations, and is it ethically and scientifically justified?” Høeg asked. “We owe our children science-based recommendations here in the United States.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X