Trump's wind energy assault sinks permitting reform - Senate Environment & Public Works Committee

[Rhiannon12866]

By sabotaging one of our cheapest, cleanest energy sources, the Trump Administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform.

On the Senate floor, ‪Senator Whitehouse‬ makes clear that the illegal attacks on fully permitted wind energy projects must be reversed if there is to be any chance that permitting talks resume. - 01/07/2026.

[rampartd]

1. drill baby drill

'cause we ain't gonna need a planet after jesus returns.

what is wrong with these people?

[hunter]

2. Wind energy is not cheap, clean, or green.

Sure, the creature-who-shall-not-be-named opposes it, but it's for all the wrong reasons.

Integrating wind energy into a reliable electric grid is EXPENSIVE and will only prolong our dependence on natural gas, thus doing nothing in the long run to reduce the total amount of greenhouse gasses humans ultimately dump into the atmosphere.

I don't want to see wind turbines off the California coast. We won't save the world by trashing it with these short-lived, high maintenance, follies.

As some kind of radical environmentalist I prioritize my opposition to massive data centers, factory farm meat and dairy production, and car culture.

The people with the smallest environmental footprints generally live in cities, don't own cars, and enjoy a mostly vegetarian diet.

[thought crime]

3. Wind energy is cheaper, cleaner, and greener than doing nothing.

Wind is one of cleanest, “greenest” and least costly sources of energy. Offshore Wind is more costly, but still economically viable while being much cleaner than fossil fuels and safer than nuclear. Floating Offshore Wind mitigates the NIMBY effect because turbines are much farther offshore. But I want to see wind turbines off the Pacific Coast and Hawaii because that’s what doing something about Climate Change actually looks like.

“Radical environmentalists” have long opposed data centers, factory farm meat and dairy production, and car culture. How effective has that really that been so far? Has it made a real dent in climate change or energy use? Have “Radical environmentalists” successfully convinced a majority to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprints to achieve measurable reductions in carbon output? Or is that really just “doing nothing in the long run to reduce the total amount of greenhouse gasses humans ultimately dump into the atmosphere”.

We no longer have the luxury to wait for ideal solutions. Wind and solar energy have some downsides but they both have the tremendous economic advantage of "extracting" an unlimited resource that doesn't affect the climate. The renewable industries now have inertia and momentum around the world and both are showing an amazing range of innovation and flexibility allowing better ways to integrate with existing electric grids but also to support development of a new "really green" hydrogen economy.

Real Radical Environmentalist Bill McKibben champions solar and wind energy as the most effective tools to combat climate change, arguing they are now the cheapest power sources, represent the fastest energy transition in history, and offer a path to a more democratic and sustainable future, despite disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry

[hunter]

4. Wind energy is a bonanza for the natural gas industry...

... and all the people who make and install the expensive equipment required to integrate it into the grid.

Wind energy won't slow down our slide into global warming catastrophe enough to matter. It's a "feel good" distraction. The biggest conservation impact it has is that high electricity prices force people who are constantly living on the edge of financial ruin to use less electricity and buy less stuff, including some necessities like healthy food and medical insurance.

Affluent people don't care about the price of electricity or the cost of generating it themselves. They'll put solar panels on their roof and consider themselves "green."

The energy "transition" is a blatant lie. We are not transitioning away from fossil fuels. It's not a case of "perfection being the enemy of the good" because wind power is not good. It's just an alternate way of trashing the planet.

The only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely (which we need to do) and supporting eight billion people is nuclear power. That's just the way the math works out.

As a species we've backed ourselves into a corner.

[thought crime]

5. Wind energy will compete with natural gas

Last edited Sat Jan 10, 2026, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Your comment says “wind energy won't slow down our slide into global warming catastrophe enough to matter”, but the only alternatives you offer are voluntary conservation and nuclear energy, which have already failed to slow down our slide into global warming catastrophe enough to matter. Nuclear power, in particular has been in use for a long time and is still providing less than 10% of electricity worldwide with the same or even a slightly declining share in the last twenty years. Those who claim that only nuclear power can displace fossil fuels must explain why it has failed to do so.

On the other hand Wind and Solar have both increased in the share of global electricity in the last ten years and together now provide a greater worldwide share of electricity than nuclear power and projected to continue to grow due to the lower cost of development and the limitless and accessible supply of solar and wind energy.

Trump's dislike of "windmills" may seriously disrupt wind energy development in this country for the next three years, but the rest of the world is moving on.