SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
renewable energy
Critics Hammer Trump Admin's 'Taxpayer Funded Bribe' to Kill Massive Wind Energy Project
"The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close," said one critic.
Mar 23, 2026
Critics slammed the Trump administration on Monday after it announced a deal to pay almost $1 billion to a French energy company to cancel its plans to construct wind farms across the eastern US.
As reported by The New York Times, French firm TotalEnergies has agreed to forfeit its leases in federal waters off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, and will instead invest the money it received from the Trump administration into oil and gas projects in the US, "including a facility in Texas that would export liquefied natural gas to global markets."
TotalEnergies paid nearly $928 million for the rights to access federal waters during former President Joe Biden's administration.
The Times described the agreement as "an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels, a main driver of climate change, while throttling offshore wind power."
Patrick Pouyanné, the chief executive of TotalEnergies, said that the firm decided to abandon its US wind farm plans due to "practical" considerations, while emphasizing that the firm wasn't giving up on wind power all together.
"When the Trump administration came to power and began setting US energy policy, we said that we’ll have to reconsider, clearly, these offshore wind project developments," explained Pouyanné, adding that "we continue to invest in onshore solar, onshore wind, batteries."
Many critics expressed disbelief that the Trump administration would go to such extraordinary lengths to kill a clean energy project, especially after the president sent oil and gasoline prices soaring earlier this month when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
"Let’s call this what it is: a taxpayer-funded bribe to kill homegrown clean energy and hand the money straight to oil and gas executives," wrote climate advocacy organization Evergreen Action in a social media post. "Trump is once again making Americans pay more for energy so his Big Oil donors can rake in even more profits."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, expressed a similar sentiment.
"$1 billion of our tax dollars to kill a clean energy program that creates jobs, just so Trump's Big Oil donors can make more profit," D'Arrigo wrote. "The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at press watchdog Media Matters for America, argued that the agreement was a corrupt bargain aimed at hurting the president's political foes, including the Democratic leaders of New York and North Carolina.
"Climate/renewables arguments aside, this is the president's administration paying a foreign company to invest in states where Republicans are in charge rather than ones where Democrats are in charge," Gertz wrote, "using tax dollars to punish people who didn't vote for his party."
US Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) said that the deal to kill the planned wind farms was yet another example of the Trump administration making life in the US less affordable.
"This administration just spent $1 BILLION of your money to make sure wind farms don't get built," Blunt Rochester wrote. "You''ll have them to thank for higher electric bills each month."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Israel’s War on Iran Once Again Exposes the Folly of Fossil Fuel Dependence
The world’s leaders should not only condemn US and Israeli aggression that has thrown the global economy into a tailspin but also take action to insulate their economies from this relentless cycle of fossil-fueled violence, volatility, and instability
Mar 19, 2026
As the US and Israeli war on Iran continues into its third week, the human, economic, and ecological impacts are devastating. Some 3,000 Iranians have been killed, including 165 children in one school strike, 10,000 injured, and 3.2 million displaced.
The war has caused a crisis. The World Health Organization has warned that with many oil storage tanks hit, resulting in “black rain” falling on Tehran, there is "danger for the population." The debris contains toxins that can cause respiratory and neurological damage, as well as certain kinds of cancer. For US consumers, who were promised that President Donald Trump would stop foreign conflict, the war is costing more than $890 million a day in direct costs, before we factor in the rising costs of energy. This is money that could be spent on education and healthcare.
The war has also brought chaos to global oil markets. Middle East producers have cut oil production by at least 10 million barrels per day, sending oil prices soaring. With no end to the conflict in sight, oil markets remain jittery and volatile.
Spikes in the price of oil affect billions of working people worldwide. They are forced to pay more to fill up their tanks, heat their homes, and even purchase food, since fertilizer is often made from fossil fuels. Rising energy prices can also cause knock-on inflation in the price of other consumer goods.
It is nonsensical that the global economy is so dependent on a 21-mile strait of water staying open to tanker traffic.
On Tuesday, the price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, was close to $104, up almost 50% from before the conflict started. By Thursday, after strikes on Gulf oil and gas infrastructure, oil was $119 a barrel and gas jumped 30%, with industry insiders calling it an “Armageddon scenario.” “The world does not need $120 oil,” said Steven Pruett, chief executive of one Texas-based oil producer, Elevation Resources. “It’s going to cause economic destruction.”
Last week, the global energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, said that oil markets are suffering “the largest supply disruption in history.” The boss of Saudi Aramco, Amin Nasser, has warned of “catastrophic consequences” for the world economy if the US-Iran war drags on.
The problem lies with the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. A quarter of the world’s oil—some 20 million barrels a day—passes through the Strait, which is only 21 miles wide at one point. And now, in retaliation for the US and Israeli aggression, Iran has effectively stopped traffic through the Strait by bombing tankers.
For decades, academics and the oil industry have warned that war in Iran could cut off the Strait in times of conflict. The industry has long feared what would happen if the Strait were to close. Chevron boss Mike Wirth recently said: “We do crisis management exercises… the big one has always been something in the Middle East that shuts the Strait of Hormuz… Markets are very uncomfortable, uncertain, volatile, and unpredictable.”
It has become increasingly apparent that Trump had no plan for dealing with the Strait’s closure after pleading earlier this week with European allies to help keep it open. In a scathing editorial, the New York Times wrote: “President Trump went to war against Iran without explaining his strategy to the American people or the world. It now appears that he may not have had much of a strategy at all.”
It added that he also “failed to plan for a predictable side effect of a war in the Middle East: a disruption of oil supplies that causes a price spike and impairs the global economy.”
The evidence bears this out. The threat of closing the Strait remained unseen by the Trump administration, bloodthirsty for regime change and blinkered by the ease of removing President Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela.
Before the strikes on Iran, Trump’s Energy Secretary Chris Wright had told an interviewer he was not concerned that the looming war might disrupt oil supplies in the Middle East and wreak havoc in the markets. Since the crisis began, Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have appeared “flummoxed” by the surge in prices, according to Politico. One industry official has called Burgum the “Where’s Waldo” of the crisis. Both men have been scrambling, but failing, “to head off a bout of energy-driven inflation.”
After a closed-door briefing to lawmakers last week, one Democratic Senator, Chris Murphy, said on social media that the administration had no plan for the Strait of Hormuz and did “not know how to get it safely back open.”
It's not all bad news for the oil industry, though.
Oil companies are set to make obscene profits. Oil Change researchers recently calculated that if oil prices rise just $20 a barrel, US producers will rake in $280 million in extra revenue every day. That’s over $100 billion a year. Shares in the six oil majors, BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies, have soared by more than $130 billion in the first two weeks of the war.
This isn’t the first time global oil markets have been thrown into upheaval by war, and by looking to the past, we can see the dangers and possibilities created by oil shocks. In 2022, oil companies were able to use the invasion of Ukraine to increase their already massive profits.
For long-term economic security and stability, as well as a future safe from climate disasters, there needs to be a radical shift to renewables.
The five Big Oil companies—BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies—reported combined profits of $196.3 billion the following year, more than the economic output of most countries. Working people around the world, as well as our climate, paid the price for Big Oil’s greed. For example, the war cost Canadians $200 billion over the next three years due to inflation spikes.
After the Ukraine war, Pakistan prioritized renewables. Energy analysts in the country believe that solar expansion has helped insulate the power sector from the spiraling energy costs.
“While we’re certainly seeing some impacts, the expansion of distributed solar in the country has provided a cushioning effect against the impacts [of the energy crisis]” Nabiya Imran, an associate at Renewables First, a Pakistani think tank, told The Guardian.
The world’s reaction to the 1973 oil crisis shows that a different path is possible. After oil prices quadrupled, there was significant investment in renewables and energy efficiency. Back then, the US government worked on a program to promote wind turbines and energy efficiency, which would be antithetical to the Trump administration.
Indeed, the madness of Trump’s current war on renewables is such that the administration is reportedly planning to pay nearly $1 billion to French energy company TotalEnergies to stop further offshore wind development.
Despite this, the chaos in the energy markets has led to renewed calls to get off oil and decarbonize. In the UK, The Guardian editorial board argued: “After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe swapped Russian pipeline gas for American LNG [liquefied natural gas]. Dependency didn’t disappear. Britain just changed suppliers. That is one reason among many why this crisis must see the government focus like a laser on faster decarbonisation, not more drilling.”
US tech corporation Microsoft, which donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, has also said the war strengthens the case for investment in clean energy sources and battery storage. “Wind and solar as, as part of that mix, is a huge benefit from the standpoint of price stability, because once you install it, you have more certainty around what that actual cost profile looks like,” the company told the Financial Times.
It is nonsensical that the global economy is so dependent on a 21-mile strait of water staying open to tanker traffic. It is nonsensical that oil prices are so volatile that they whipsaw on a tweet from Trump or even a misleading one from US Energy Secretary Chris Wright claiming the US military had successfully shepherded a tanker through the Strait. And it is deeply unjust that this volatility affects the household bills for billions of people.
As some pundits have pointed out, even if Trump declares victory, it is now up to Iran when they will allow the Strait to reopen. It can close it at any time in the future. Iran has the means to hold much of the global economy to ransom.
So, for long-term economic security and stability, as well as a future safe from climate disasters, there needs to be a radical shift to renewables. Leading pundits agree:
There is evidence that the war in Iran is beginning to cause the same shift in thinking that the 1973 oil crisis did. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung said this week that it was time to prepare major measures to conserve energy as the situation deteriorates. These include promoting energy conservation and “rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.”
It's also worth remembering that the US military is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases of any institution on Earth and the US is the largest producer of oil and gas globally. The military uses much of that might to defend US interests in fossil fuels.
The world’s leaders should not only condemn US and Israeli aggression that has once again thrown the global economy into a tailspin but also take action to insulate their economies from this relentless cycle of fossil-fueled violence, volatility, and instability. Moving away from fossil fuels does not guarantee world peace. We are already seeing conflicts over the rare earth minerals needed for solar and other green technologies in places like the Congo.
But it can insulate working people from the shocks triggered by the reckless aggression of powerful nations that consider themselves adequately protected from the consequences of their actions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Another Oil-Fueled War Erupts, Study Reveals Planet Heating at Unprecedented Rate
The findings mean global temperatures are on track to surpass 1.5°C above preindustrial levels before 2030.
Mar 06, 2026
Nearly a week into President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran that is likely to increase climate-warming emissions, new research has found that the pace of human-caused global heating has accelerated over the past 10 years.
The study, published in Geophysical Research Letters on Friday, concluded that global heating had nearly doubled from a rate of less than 0.2°C a decade from 1970-2015 to 0.35°C between 2015-25. This would put global temperatures on track to surpass 1.5°C above preindustrial levels before 2030.
"Warming proceeding faster is not unexpected by climate models, but it is a cause of concern and shows how insufficient the efforts to slow and eventually stop global warming under the Paris Climate Accord have so far been," study authors Stefan Rahmstorf and G. Foster wrote.
Scientists had long suspected that global warming was speeding up, given that the past three years were the three hottest on record. Yet previous studies had not been able to find statistically significant evidence of acceleration. The new study removed the natural variability from solar variations, volcanic eruptions, and El Niño from the data, which revealed a statistically significant speedup.
“How quickly the Earth continues to warm ultimately depends on how rapidly we reduce global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to zero."
It follows a study from 2025 that found a smaller increase of 0.27°C per decade from 2015-24.
“Either way, this represents a significant increase in the rate of warming,” Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth and a co-author on the earlier study, told The Guardian. “[This] should be worrying as the world hurtles toward crossing 1.5°C later this decade.”
Whatever the rate of increase, the solution, from a scientific perspective, is clear.
“How quickly the Earth continues to warm ultimately depends on how rapidly we reduce global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to zero,” Rahmstorf, a Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research scientist, told The Guardian.
Yet the findings come at a time when emissions look set only to increase, as the US launches an oil-fueled war on Iran that risks drawing other major military powers into a greater conflict.
"The outbreak of any war is bad news for the climate, just as the election of politicians hostile to climate action is," Mark Hertsgaard, Covering Climate Now executive director and co-founder, and Giles Trendle, former managing director of Al Jazeera English, wrote in a newsletter on Thursday. "The climate implications of this new war are not the center of attention at the moment, but they are essential context for understanding what’s at stake. At a time when civilization is hurtling toward irreversible climate breakdown, to overlook the climate consequences of three of the deadliest militaries on Earth going to war would be journalistic malpractice."
War itself increases greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have found that Russia's invasion of Ukraine emitted as much in its first two years as the annual emissions of the Netherlands, while Israel's genocide in Gaza emitted as much in its first four months as each of the 135 lowest-emitting nations in a year.
The Conflict and Environment Observatory observed 120 incidents of environmental harm during the first three days of the Iran conflict, and noted that attacks on oil and gas infrastructure had global implications:
There are also consequences for the global environment through changes in greenhouse gas emissions. Attacks on oil and gas sites will release methane, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gasses, but the curtailment of production—as has occurred with Qatari LNG [liquefied natural gas], oil production in Iraqi Kurdistan, and Israeli offshore gas—does not necessarily reduce emissions. Instead energy price signals can lead to short term substitution, as well as more complex downstream energy supply changes over longer timeframes.
Fossil fuels are also required to power the machinery that makes war possible.
"What’s beyond dispute is that this war could not be fought without oil," Hertsgaard and Trendle wrote. "The aircraft carriers, jet planes, and the myriad support systems they require gobble immense quantities of fossil fuels. Which helps explain why the US Department of Defense is the largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases globally."
There is also the speculation that control of fossil fuels is one motivation for the war itself, given that Iran has the world's third-largest reserve of oil. While Trump has not included oil in his incoherent word salad of war aims, as he did when he kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, climate advocate Bill McKibben pointed out that members of US oil industry have said that they would rather develop Iran's oil than Venezuela's, as its industry is more "structurally sound."
"Europe, Asia, and other regions whose energy costs skyrocket because of this reckless escalation by the Trump administration are reminded, yet again, that fossil fuels are volatile, insecure, and expensive."
"The military attacks on Iran are not about peace and democracy, but rather about sowing fear, bloodshed, and despair as the US attempts to further destabilize the region and secure access to profitable natural resources that it wants to control," the Climate Justice Alliance said in a statement. "This is not surprising given recent foreign policy actions taken by the Trump administration in Venezuela and Cuba, and our ongoing history of engaging in coups, occupations, and endless wars to control resource-rich countries, especially for oil and gas."
Yet, at the same time, the war is already offering an object lesson in the dangers of relying on fossil fuels—for everyone except fossil fuel CEOs. The war could disrupt markets such that profits soar for Big Oil and liquefied natural gas companies while ordinary people suddenly find themselves struggling to pay gas or heating bills.
"Iran is in the middle of one of the world’s most important energy corridors," Lorne Stockman, Oil Change International research director, told Common Dreams. "Roughly 20% of global petroleum flows through the Strait of Hormuz, so when military escalation disrupts that route, global energy markets are immediately impacted."
Stockman continued: "That instability means higher energy bills for people around the world while communities in the region suffer the devastation of war. Europe, Asia, and other regions whose energy costs skyrocket because of this reckless escalation by the Trump administration are reminded, yet again, that fossil fuels are volatile, insecure, and expensive. The only question is whether governments will heed that signal and make a fair fossil fuel phase out a priority.”
Chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Tzeporah Berman made a similar point on social media: "Drones hitting Saudi oil fields, Qatar halting LNG production, Iran putting a squeeze on the Strait of Hormuz, and US attack on Iran’s Kharg Island oil terminals—all of it should be a wake-up call that fossil fuel phaseout is a national and energy security priority."
Yet Berman noted that the energy landscape is different today than it has been during previous periods of war.
"Unlike previous oil wars renewable energy is now available at scale," Berman continued. "It's distributed, diversified, and resilient. Most importantly, solar panels don’t blow up and once they are in place you don’t need ships to constantly feed them to make energy. The sun is looking like a pretty stable energy source right about now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular