XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.global-warming   
   XPost: alt.politics.trump   
   From: mxxl-a-long@hmn.com   
      
   Turning Our Back on Clean Energy   
   Why does MAGA hate the planet?   
   Paul Krugman   
   Feb 16, 2026   
      
      
   Source: Berkeley Earth   
      
   It has been a brutal winter in much of the United States. Weather is a   
   chaotic system in which extreme events are always happening somewhere. But   
   as I am sure you have noticed, extreme weather events — catastrophic storms   
   and flooding, punishing droughts, and yes, extreme cold snaps — are   
   becoming more common as a result of climate change.   
      
   For climate change is not just continuing: it's accelerating. Multiple   
   estimates find that 2025 was one of the warmest years on record for the   
   planet, exceeded only by 2024 and 2023. Indeed, Berkeley Earth reports that   
   "The warming spike observed in 2023 to 2025 has been extreme and suggests   
   an acceleration in the rate of Earth's warming. "   
      
   In other news, the Trump administration has gone to war against any and all   
   efforts to limit climate change. The administration is also imposing a   
   "blockade" against wind and solar projects, delaying or even revoking   
   permits, whether or not these projects have received federal subsidies.   
      
   Now, there isn't a genuine scientific dispute about the reality of global   
   warming and its causes. There isn't even a serious dispute about the costs   
   of fighting climate change: the economics of green energy are more   
   favorable than they have ever been.   
      
   So what's going on? The Trump administration hates science and science-   
   based policies in general; look at its war on vaccines, which will end up   
   causing an enormous number of deaths. Its assault on universities threatens   
   the best scientific research centers in the world. Its irrational treatment   
   of immigrants means the best and brightest from the around the world no   
   longer want to come here. But in the case of energy, its destructive policy   
   largely reflects the corrupting influence of big money.   
      
   I'll explain in a minute. First, some background.   
      
   Almost 40 years have passed since James Hansen's landmark Senate testimony   
   warning about global warming. He was right. Climate science has been   
   overwhelmingly vindicated by reality.   
      
   However, the economics and politics of climate policy have played out very   
   differently from what almost anyone expected.   
      
   As late as the 2010s, many observers — myself included — would have said   
   that the big problem in addressing climate change was who would bear the   
   cost. Policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, everyone believed, would   
   slow the growth of the economy and of real incomes. True, anti-   
   environmentalists were grossly exaggerating these costs. In 2009 I wrote   
   that   
      
   [T]he best available economic analyses suggest that even deep cuts in   
   greenhouse gas emissions would impose only modest costs on the average   
   family.   
      
   But what we knew at the time nonetheless said that there would be   
   significant costs to slowing global warming. And this was problematic,   
   because the costs of limiting emissions would be incurred right away, while   
   the benefits of reduced warming would accrue decades later — and many of   
   them would go to other countries. So action on climate appeared to require   
   (a) international cooperation (b) persuading voters to accept costs now in   
   exchange for a better world many years in the future.   
      
   And it was all too easy to be pessimistic about the prospects both for   
   cooperation and for persuading voters to accept even modest future-oriented   
   sacrifices.   
      
   Then came the renewable energy revolution. Solar and wind power have become   
   cost-competitive with fossil fuels — they are, in particular, clearly   
   cheaper than coal. Huge progress in batteries has rapidly reduced the   
   problem of intermittency (the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't   
   always blow. ) There's now a clear path for a transition to an   
   "electrotech" economy in which renewable-generated electricity heats our   
   homes, powers our cars, and much more.   
      
   This transition would make us richer, not poorer. In fact, nations that for   
   whatever reason fail to take advantage of electrotech will be left behind   
   in global competition.   
      
   And at this precise moment — a moment in which acting to accelerate the   
   energy transition would increase, not reduce, economic growth — the U. S.   
   government has been taken over by people who want us to go backward on   
   energy. The Trump administration has even introduced a mascot, "Coalie, "   
   in an attempt to make an extremely dirty fuel cute. But coal isn't cute.   
   Even if we ignore the role of coal in climate change, coal-burning power   
   plants caused hundreds of thousands of excess U. S. deaths between 1999 and   
   2020.   
      
   Why the government is trying to make coal cute | Grist   
      
   What explains this extraordinary rejection of progress and embrace of   
   energy know-nothingism?   
      
   Money may not be the whole story, but it's a lot of the story.   
      
   Indeed, much of what is happening to American democracy has its origins in   
   the long-term strategy of the billionaire Koch brothers. The Kochs spent   
   decades promoting right-wing politics in general, with a special role in   
   the takeover of the Supreme Court by the Federalist Society. But an   
   important part of their agenda, and hence that of the right-wing movement   
   as a whole, has always been to keep America burning the fossil fuels on   
   which their wealth rested. If you want to know more, read Lisa Graves' book   
   on the Roberts Supreme Court, "Without precedent".   
      
   At this point, moreover, it's not just about normal channels of political   
   influence, nor it just about domestic billionaires. We now live in a time   
   in which U. S. policy is shaped by sheer, naked corruption (enabled in part   
   by the Koch takeover of the courts). Notably, Middle Eastern petrostates,   
   which have a strong interest in blocking the energy transition, have played   
   a huge role in enriching the Trump family.   
      
   It's somewhat surprising that other big-money interests haven't pushed   
   back. After all, crippling the development of renewable energy is bad for   
   business, and especially bad for the electricity-hungry crypto and AI   
   industries, which ordinarily have a great deal of sway with the Trump   
   administration. But maybe they have decided that special treatment, and   
   especially a green light for their own unethical behavior, matters more   
   than affordable energy.   
      
   If there's any good news here, it is that from a global point of view this   
   malignancy may not matter very much. America is not the world. In fact, at   
   this point we're responsible for only a small fraction of global greenhouse   
   gas emissions:   
      
      
   So America's hard turn against renewables and climate action won't be   
   decisive for the climate future as long as other countries continue to move   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)