From the DAILY CALLER

Adam Pack
Contributor

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. (RELATED: Biden Celebrates Offshore Wind ‘Progress’ Despite Industry’s Major Struggles, Cancellations)

“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 headwinds, project 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.

Scenes from the @fishstewardship flotilla protest at the Vineyard Wind farm today. pic.twitter.com/iVFpGHasYd

— Nantucket Current (@ACKCurrent) August 25, 2024

“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. (RELATED: ‘We’ve Been Steamrolled’: Fishermen Protest Offshore Wind Following Turbine Failure That Shed Debris Into Atlantic)

“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.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

Dr. Faig S Askerov, (self-described as the Former Regulatory Compliance and Environment Director, BP Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey Region, PhD in Petrochemistry Scientist, Lecturer) has presented a graph and definitions that can be used as “Exhibit A” against the climate road to serfdom. At a time of political change against climate alarmism/forced energy transformation, even deep ecologists should question whether CO2 greening is better than wind, solar, battery industrialization.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) calculations

1. Gross GHG Emissions

• Definition: Total emissions generated by an entity (such as a country, company, or individual) without accounting for any offsets or sequestration efforts.
• Example: A factory emits 100,000 tons of CO₂ annually.

2. Net GHG Emissions

• Definition: Emissions after accounting for offsets, carbon removal, or carbon sequestration (e.g., planting trees, carbon capture technologies).
• Formula: Net GHG Emissions = Gross Emissions – (Carbon Offsets + Carbon Sequestration)
• Example: If the same factory invests in reforestation that absorbs 20,000 tons of CO₂, its net emissions become 80,000 tons.

3. Carbon Neutrality

• Definition: Achieving a balance between emissions produced and emissions removed from the atmosphere through offsets. This doesn’t require eliminating emissions but offsetting what remains.
• Achieved through: Renewable energy investments, Purchasing carbon credits or offsets
• Example:
A company emits 10,000 tons of CO₂ but buys carbon credits from projects that absorb an equivalent amount, making it carbon-neutral.

4. Net-Zero Emissions

• Definition: Refers to reducing emissions as much as possible and using offsets or removals only for unavoidable emissions. The focus is more on eliminating emissions upfront rather than relying on offsets.
• Key Principles: Long-term, permanent reductions are prioritized. Any residual emissions must be balanced with direct removals (e.g., through carbon capture and storage).
• Example: A company redesigns operations to cut emissions by 95% and removes the remaining 5% through sequestration.

5. Zero Emissions (True Zero)

• Definition: Achieving no emissions at all from an activity, product, or process, without relying on any form of offsetting. This is technically challenging for most industries.
• Example: An electric vehicle that uses only renewable energy throughout its entire lifecycle could be considered a zero-emission vehicle.

6. Science-Based Targets

• Definition: Reduction targets aligned with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. Companies or governments commit to a pathway that includes GHG reduction milestones.
• Example: A company may aim to cut emissions by 50% by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050.

7. GHG Protocol Scopes (1, 2, and 3)

• Scope 1: Direct emissions from owned or controlled sources (e.g., fuel combustion on-site).
• Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased electricity, heat, or steam.
• Scope 3: Indirect emissions from the supply chain and product use.

In summary, these different approaches to GHG calculations reflect varying levels of ambition and strategies. While carbon neutrality can be achieved through offsets, net-zero focuses more on eliminating emissions directly, with limited reliance on offsets for unavoidable emissions. Zero emissions is the most stringent target, aiming to produce no emissions at all.