I believe that I can confidently claim that one thing that Trump is not guilty of is smart long-term thinking.

I wonder what Big Oil is thinking these days.

War is Good (for Big Oil)

Among the consequences of the US/Israel-Iran War is the ongoing rise in oil prices. Another consequence of this war is the significant increase in the resources and money the US directly provides Big Oil, whether through the purchase of higher volumes of fossil fuels (at higher costs) to feed military actions or in the indirect expenses of insurance and military protection coverage of the significant chunk of the oil transport market that passes through the Strait of Hormuz. That’s right: the United States government is now getting into the business of insuring oil tankers, since Lloyds of London and the other main marine insurers aren’t interested in covering loss of shipping when their clients ply the waters adjacent to Iran. There are other geopolitical consequences, too, such as today’s “permission” by our government to allow India to buy Russian oil, where the higher prices for oil will bring in more revenue to Russia and thus help that country prosecute its war against Ukraine, but hey, that doesn’t seem to be a bug for Trump’s program, but rather a feature.

And then, of course, armed conflict causes a noticeable spike in greenhouse gas emissions. Here’s a Gemini AI summary to the search, “war and greenhouse gas emissions”:

Global military activity contributes approximately 5.5% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, a figure larger than the entire aviation industry. Wars, such as in Ukraine and Gaza, release immense CO₂ through fuel-heavy combat, infrastructure destruction, and future reconstruction needs, often operating outside mandatory international reporting standards. 

Key Aspects of War and GHG Emissions:

• • Massive Carbon Footprint: If the world’s militaries were a country, they would rank as the fourth largest emitter globally.
  • Major Conflicts: The first 15 months of the war in Gaza resulted in at least 32 MtCO₂e, comparable to Croatia’s annual emissions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has generated an estimated 230 MtCO₂e in roughly two years.
  • Fuel Consumption: Militaries are intensive consumers of fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Defense is considered the world’s largest institutional consumer of oil.
  • Infrastructure & Rebuilding: Beyond immediate combat, destroying cities and the subsequent carbon-intensive reconstruction efforts create significant, long-term environmental impacts.
  • Transparency Gaps: Military emissions are often exempted from international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement, making their true impact hard to track.

So now add to the above count the US-Israel-Iran War and the expansion of the conflict throughout the Middle East.

Big Oil—Happy, Sad, or Confused?

I’ll play an amateur psychologist for Big Oil and try to think through the emotive state of the industry. The good (i.e., happy) news for Big Oil is that the price per barrel has been quickly climbing due to the latest Mideast conflict, and that means profitability is up, and especially for the U.S. industry. Big Oil has been operating on a surplus basis price-wise, hovering not that far above profit margin make-or-break levels with per-barrel costs around the sixty-dollar mark. But today, Brent Crude is up $7.28 per barrel, or $92.69. Natural gas too is climbing. It is great for the U.S. fossil fuel corporations having Trump as their front man, considering that the supply of Mideast oil and gas is curtailed, so profits accrue more to the U.S. corporations. Headlines talk about oil hitting $150 per barrel in weeks.

If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands.

Big Oil’s applause—especially for the U.S. corporations—grows louder when you consider the anti-clean energy efforts of President Big Oil Stooge. The States are facing growing electricity demand with the much-ballyhooed AI data center predictions, but also for the welcome electrification of heating and cooling, transportation, and some electrification expansion in various segments of industry.

Dark Clouds in Reality Land

But this boon has the capacity to go bust. Not because AI and data centers aren’t a real thing, although there’s a bunch of questions about this, too. One big question centers on just how real the electricity growth load demand really is, but I’ll leave further discussion on this topic to another recent post, “Fossil Fuel Demand Growth Uber Alles.”

On the other hand, any price rise in fossil fuels makes clean energy that much more competitive and the issue of affordability is rising across the country. Even in Trumpland, there’s a growing chorus for solar power. From Solar Energy Industries Association,” published on February 19, 2026:

A recent poll from Fabrizio, Lee & Associates, chief pollster for President Trump, found that a clear majority of Republicans support expanding solar power in the United States. In the survey, 68% of GOP voters agreed that “we need all forms of electricity generation, including utility solar, to be built to lower electricity costs,” while 70% said they support utility-scale solar deployment when projects use American-made materials. Another poll from Kellyanne Conway’s KA Consulting showed that three-quarters of Trump voters (75%) in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas believe that solar energy should be used in the U.S. to strengthen and increase our energy supply.

This story is not simply wishful thinking on the part of pro-solar outfits like the SEIA. This story is making headlines and getting coverage in the mainstream media.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects a record 86 GW of new utility-scale electric generating capacity will be added to the U.S. grid in 2026, driven by a 62% increase in renewable energy additions over 2025 levels. Solar (51%) and battery storage (28%) dominate the growth, with 93% of new capacity coming from renewables and storage, including 43.4 GW of solar and 24.3 GW of battery capacity.

If these projections hold, renewables (including small-scale solar) are expected to surpass natural gas in total capacity by the end of 2026. And these projections were done well before the US/Israel-Iran War. Consider, too, that the Trump’s administration is hostile to clean energy. Consider, too, that most other nations aren’t hostile to clean energy and with spikes in price of natural gas, I’m guessing other nations reliant on natural gas and other fossil fuel imports grow even less happy with such dependency.

It remains to be seen how long the price jump for fossil fuels will continue. The cost of running a gasoline-powered car or diesel-based transport continues to climb, and there are already signs of a resurgence of EVs in the U.S., although there’s already been plenty of solid growth of EVs in the majority of the world.

So, How Happy is Big Oil?

As much as I’m horrified by Trump’s stupid fantasy play with real world life-and-death ramifications, I find myself wondering if the foreign military entanglements might boost the move away from Trump and his madness. The 2026 midterms look better than ever for the shift in Congress toward the Democrats and with Trump’s gang of incompetents mucking up the economy and dealing out threats to democracy, 2028 looks good for a full ousting. Of course, if Democrats keep their fealty to corporations as a priority, my bet is off.

Dear Josephine, the second book of The Steep Climes Quartet, takes place in 2029. There’s a new, unnamed Democratic administration just in, and the Congress has moved toward progressive gains. Energy and climate policies are back in play, with the sort of 100-Day advances a guy can hope for, but politics still has its partisan problems and by no means are all Democrats clear about working for citizens instead of corporations. Campaign funding reform has not been accomplished, but the fight is on. Progress moves more slowly than many of us might like, but progress takes place. Big Oil’s efforts to maintain business continues, especially in the push to get more and more gas plants built. By 2035, which is the year Over Brooklyn Hills, the third book of The Steep Climes Quartet, takes place, Big Oil is on its back foot, but still has plenty of kick left, even as court cases against the industry and pro-energy transition legislation do well. The problem remains of too much money in the political system, although real progress to kill Citizens United and the absurd legal foundation for that awful decision is finally imminent. Everyday life continues: people struggle with bills and are exasperated or delighted in relationships, work, and circumstances beyond an individual’s control.

The carbon emission tide is turning, but slowly, like the proverbial change in direction of a large ship’s course. Plenty of damage has been done and shows up in climate change consequences. Tipping points are an ongoing concern. Greed, power, and selfishness are counterpoints to our better angels.

We Are All Sad, Really

As excited Big Oil may be about expanded sales and profits, they live in the same world as the rest of us, and that world is getting hotter because of Big Oil’s expanded sales and profits. From the AGU Journals collection, Advancing Earth and Space Sciences posted a Geophysical Research Letter titled “Global Warming Has Accelerated Significantly,” authored by G. Foster, S. Rahmstorf, and first published on March 6, 2026. Fortunately for us non-scientists, AGU offers a plain text summary, as follows:

The rise in global temperature has been widely considered to be quite steady for several decades since the 1970s. Recently, however, scientists have started to debate whether global warming has accelerated since then. It is difficult to be sure of that because of natural fluctuations in the warming rate, and so far no statistical significance (meaning 95% certainty) of an acceleration (increase in warming rate) has been demonstrated. In this study we subtract the estimated influence of El Niño events, volcanic eruptions and solar variations from the data, which makes the global temperature curve less variable, and it then shows a statistically significant acceleration of global warming since about the year 2015. 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.

If even this is too long to read, here are the key points:

Key Points

• • During the last decade, the rate at which Earth warmed increased substantially
  • After removing the influence of known natural variability factors, the increase of the warming rate is statistically significant
  • At the present rate, we will exceed the 1.5°C limit of the Paris Climate Accord by 2030

We no longer have the opportunity to keep global warming from occurring, but we do have the capacity to slow down carbon emissions and make it more likely that climate change consequences are less severe.

If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands.

The post Oil War and Counter-War on Oil first appeared on David Guenette.

What follows is an AI-generated report based on the following query to Gemini in the “Deep Research” mode:

Identify and summarize studies, investigations, and reports of well-funded state and local organizations and groups opposing solar and wind power projects that may have funding and other forms of assistance from national organizations, think tanks, and professional groups. Be as specific as possible in regard to names of organizations and principal participants and include these names, along with the budgets involved and the connections to state and local level solar and wind bans in table form as well as within the text report.

This report was generated and edited on February 9, 2026.

A Forensic Analysis of the Anti-Renewable Energy Countermovement

Executive Summary

The transition to renewable energy in the United States, specifically the deployment of utility-scale solar photovoltaics and offshore wind turbines, has encountered a formidable and increasingly sophisticated barrier: a coordinated, multi-layered opposition network that transcends traditional “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) sentiments. While local opposition to infrastructure projects is a historic constant in American land-use planning, the current wave of resistance against renewable energy differs fundamentally in its structure, funding, and strategic cohesion. What appears to be a fragmented archipelago of local grievances is, in reality, a unified “countermovement” orchestrated by a nexus of national think tanks, fossil fuel trade associations, and dark money conduits.

Drawing upon a comprehensive review of financial filings (IRS Forms 990), court dockets, legislative testimony, and investigative reports from academic institutions—including Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University—this analysis reveals the operational mechanics of this network. It identifies the “information subsidies” provided by national entities like the State Policy Network (SPN), the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), and the Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI) to local groups. These subsidies manifest as legal counsel, rhetorical scripts, expert testimony, and direct financial assistance, effectively weaponizing local zoning codes and environmental statutes to preserve the market dominance of incumbent fossil fuel industries.

The report is structured to provide a granular examination of this ecosystem. It begins by dissecting the national infrastructure of opposition, profiling the think tanks that function as the movement’s ideological and logistical command centers. It then traces the financial arteries that sustain these operations, identifying specific donors and funding vehicles. Subsequent sections provide deep regional analyses of the Midwest (specifically Ohio and Michigan) and the Atlantic Coast, illustrating how national strategies are operationalized in local battlegrounds. Finally, the report synthesizes these findings to demonstrate how legal and legislative frameworks are being systematically reshaped to obstruct the renewable energy transition.

Section I: The National Infrastructure of Opposition

The structural backbone of the anti-renewable energy movement is not located in the rural townships or coastal communities where projects are proposed, but in the offices of national policy institutes, free-market think tanks, and trade associations. These organizations function as the “wholesale” suppliers of obstructionist tactics, distributing them to “retail” local groups who then deploy them in zoning hearings and town halls. This section profiles the key national organizations that provide the intellectual, legal, and strategic scaffolding for the movement.

1.1 The State Policy Network (SPN): The Central Hub of Disinformation

The State Policy Network (SPN) serves as the primary nerve center for a confederation of conservative, market-oriented think tanks across the 50 states. While SPN describes its mission as promoting federalism and local control, its affiliates have been instrumental in orchestrating opposition to Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and specific energy projects. The network’s reach is vast, allowing for the rapid dissemination of anti-renewable talking points from national headquarters to state capitals and local county boards.¹

1.1.1 Strategic Pivot to Obstruction

In 2024, the SPN explicitly identified “blocking renewable energy” as a top legislative priority. This marked a significant strategic pivot from broad advocacy for deregulation to a targeted, adversarial stance against the physical deployment of wind and solar infrastructure. This shift acknowledges that the battle for energy dominance has moved from the abstract realm of federal policy to the concrete reality of land-use permitting.²

The SPN operates through a franchise model. It provides resources, training, and coordination to independent state-level think tanks, ensuring that local opposition groups have access to high-quality production value for their campaigns. For instance, an anti-wind report produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan can be rapidly repackaged and cited by the Buckeye Institute in Ohio or the Caesar Rodney Institute in Delaware, creating an echo chamber of “expert” opinion that reinforces local biases.²

1.1.2 The Energy Policy Working Group

The operational core of SPN’s anti-renewable strategy is its Energy Policy Working Group. This group was recently placed under the leadership of Amy Oliver Cooke, a political consultant with a long history of opposing renewable mandates. Cooke previously worked for the Independence Institute, an SPN affiliate in Colorado that has received funding from coal producers. Her appointment signaled a doubling down on aggressive rhetorical strategies.²

Under Cooke’s guidance, the Working Group has refined the narrative used to oppose renewables. Moving away from outright climate denial, which holds diminishing traction with the public, the group focuses on three key themes:

1. Reliability: Framing wind and solar as inherently unstable sources that threaten grid resilience (e.g., the “Texas Blackout” narrative, despite evidence to the contrary regarding natural gas failures).
2. Cost: Arguing that renewable subsidies constitute a wealth transfer from ratepayers to foreign corporations.
3. Property Rights: A paradoxical argument that champions the rights of neighbors to not have turbines near them over the rights of landowners to lease their land for energy development.²

1.1.3 Funding and Affiliates

The SPN’s operations are underwritten by major philanthropic entities aligned with fossil fuel interests. Publicly available tax documents and investigative reporting have identified the Stand Together Trust (part of the Koch network) and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) as significant donors. In 2022 alone, Stand Together contributed over $5 million to SPN-affiliated think tanks, fueling a war chest that allows these organizations to outspend and outmaneuver pro-renewable advocates.²

1.2 The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF): The Litigation Engine

If SPN is the logistical hub, the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) represents the “heavy artillery” of the movement. Based in Austin, TPPF has grown into a financial behemoth with a 2023 revenue exceeding $28 million.⁵ It uses this immense resource base to provide high-level legal representation to local groups that would otherwise lack the funds to sue the federal government or multinational energy developers.

1.2.1 The “Life:Powered” Initiative

The TPPF’s anti-renewable crusade is centralized under its “Life:Powered” initiative. This project is explicitly dedicated to “raising the alarm” about the alleged dangers of the “green energy agenda.” It frames fossil fuels not just as economic commodities, but as moral imperatives necessary for human flourishing, thereby positioning renewable energy as anti-human.³

The initiative has been heavily funded by the Brigham Family Foundation, representing oil and gas wealth, and the broader Koch network. This funding allows Life:Powered to produce slick media campaigns, educational videos, and policy papers that circulate widely on social media, influencing public perception far beyond Texas borders.²

1.2.2 Federal Litigation Strategy

The TPPF has distinguished itself by its willingness to engage in direct federal litigation. It has effectively nationalized local land-use disputes by representing local plaintiffs in high-profile cases against offshore wind projects.

• Vineyard Wind Challenge: TPPF represents a coalition of Rhode Island and Massachusetts fishing interests (e.g., Seafreeze Shoreside Inc.) in federal court. The lawsuit challenges the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) approval of the Vineyard Wind project, alleging violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). By absorbing the legal costs for these plaintiffs—costs that can run into the millions—TPPF ensures that these legal challenges can proceed through the appellate system, delaying projects for years.¹
• The “Whale” Narrative: TPPF has been a primary propagator of the unsubstantiated theory that offshore wind survey work is responsible for the deaths of North Atlantic right whales. This narrative serves as a potent wedge issue, splitting the environmental coalition and rallying animal rights activists against wind energy.²

1.3 The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI): The Offshore Command Center

While smaller in budget than TPPF or SPN, the Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI), based in Delaware, has emerged as the tactical command center for the anti-offshore wind movement along the Atlantic Seaboard. Its influence illustrates the asymmetric power of the network, where a small, focused organization can coordinate a multi-state obstruction campaign.

1.3.1 Incubating “Astroturf” Coalitions

CRI’s most significant contribution to the movement is its role as an incubator for “astroturf” groups—organizations that appear to be grassroots citizen coalitions but are, in fact, centrally coordinated projects.

• American Coalition for Ocean Protection (ACOP): Founded by CRI, ACOP acts as a clearinghouse for anti-wind strategies, specifically targeting beach communities. It connects local homeowners’ associations with legal experts and PR consultants. ACOP does not present itself as a think tank project but as a network of “beach lovers,” masking its ideological origins.¹
• Save Right Whales Coalition: CRI principal David Stevenson, a former DuPont executive, was instrumental in the formation of the “Save Right Whales” coalition. This group leverages the endangered status of the right whale to file lawsuits and generate negative press for wind developers. Despite NOAA consistently stating there is no evidence linking wind surveying to whale mortality, the coalition—under Stevenson’s guidance—has successfully mainstreamed this claim into conservative media ecosystems.⁶

1.3.2 Financial and Personnel Links

CRI’s operations are sustained by strategic grants from foundations with industry ties. In 2022, it received $162,500 from the Longwood Foundation, which has historical ties to the DuPont family. Additionally, CRI has received funding from the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the American Energy Alliance, directly linking its anti-wind activities to the petroleum refining industry.²

1.4 The Heartland Institute and CFACT: The Ideological Vanguard

The Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) occupy the ideological flank of the movement. Their role is to provide the “scientific” and moral justifications for opposing renewable energy, often relying on fringe science and aggressive polemics.

1.4.1 Heartland’s “Circuit Riders”

The Heartland Institute deploys policy advisors, such as Steve Goreham, to travel to rural townships across the Midwest and testify in zoning hearings. These advisors present themselves as independent experts, often citing Heartland-published reports that claim wind turbines cause catastrophic health issues (“wind turbine syndrome”), kill exorbitant numbers of birds, and destroy property values.³

• Methodology of Disruption: In places like Spotsylvania, Virginia, and Knox County, Ohio, Heartland’s intervention transformed routine zoning hearings into contentious political battlegrounds. Their testimony provides local officials—who may be ideologically predisposed against renewables—with a “credentialed” basis to deny permits, citing “health and safety” concerns.³

1.4.2 CFACT and Infrastructure Obstruction

CFACT works in tandem with organizations like ALEC to draft model legislation that creates unreasonable setback requirements for solar and wind farms. More recently, CFACT has expanded its operations to the West Coast. In 2024, CFACT representatives, alongside the local REACT Alliance, petitioned the U.S. Department of Transportation to cancel a $426 million grant for port infrastructure in Humboldt Bay, California. This move demonstrates a shift from opposing specific generation projects to attacking the enabling infrastructure (ports, transmission) necessary for the industry’s growth.¹⁰

1.5 The Institute for Energy Research (IER): The Intellectual Foundation

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) provides the intellectual underpinning for the movement. Led by Robert Bradley, a former Enron executive and a disciple of Charles Koch, IER produces the dense economic analyses and white papers that other groups cite.

• MasterResource Blog: Bradley’s blog, MasterResource, serves as a repository for anti-wind arguments and a gathering place for activists. It hosts the writings of key operatives like John Droz and Lisa Linowes, creating a shared lexicon and strategic doctrine for the movement.³
• The “Energy Poverty” Narrative: IER specializes in the argument that renewable energy mandates drive up electricity prices, disproportionately hurting the poor. This narrative allows the fossil fuel industry to frame its self-preservation as a crusade for social justice.³

Section II: The Financial Engine – Following the Money

The sophisticated operations of these national organizations require significant capital. While much of this funding is obscured through “dark money” channels, forensic analysis of tax filings and bankruptcy disclosures reveals a clear pattern of fossil fuel industry support.

2.1 Dark Money Structures and “DonorsTrust”

A central mechanism for funding this countermovement is DonorsTrust, a donor-advised fund often described as the “ATM of the conservative movement.” DonorsTrust allows wealthy individuals and corporations to funnel money to think tanks like SPN, Heartland, and CRI without their names appearing on the recipient’s IRS Form 990.

• The Mechanism of Anonymity: A donor (e.g., a coal executive) gives $1 million to DonorsTrust. DonorsTrust then gives $1 million to the Heartland Institute. The public sees only a donation from DonorsTrust, effectively severing the link between the fossil fuel interest and the anti-renewable advocacy. This structure shields corporations from consumer boycotts and shareholder activism while allowing them to direct policy outcomes.³

2.2 Case Study: The “Six Donors” of the Anti-Offshore Wind Network

A landmark 2023 report by Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab, titled “Against the Wind,” provided a rare glimpse into the funding of the East Coast anti-wind network. The report identified that $16,278,401 flowed from just six fossil fuel-interested donors to the network of think tanks and coalitions between 2017 and 2021.¹⁴

While the report anonymized some donors in its public summary, cross-referencing with other investigative datasets identifies the likely composition of this group:

1. Koch Industries / Stand Together Trust: A historical and primary funder of SPN, TPPF, and AFP. The network’s ideological commitment to deregulation aligns perfectly with the obstruction of government-subsidized renewables.²
2. DonorsTrust: The primary conduit for anonymized capital.¹³
3. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): A trade association representing oil refiners. AFPM has been explicitly linked to funding the Caesar Rodney Institute and SPN meetings.²
4. Ariel Corporation (The Wright/Rastin Family): As detailed below, this Ohio-based compressor manufacturer is a major donor to SPN and local anti-solar groups.¹⁵
5. Cordelia Scaife May / Colcom Foundation: Historically a major funder of anti-immigration groups, this foundation also funds “conservation” groups that oppose population growth and infrastructure development, aligning with the “industrialization of nature” narrative used against wind farms.
6. Dominion Energy / Utility Interests: While utilities often invest in renewables, they also fund groups that oppose independent power producers (IPPs) or distributed generation (rooftop solar) to protect their monopoly status.¹⁶

2.3 Case Study: Ariel Corporation and The Empowerment Alliance

Perhaps the most direct link between industrial fossil fuel interests and local opposition is found in Ohio. Ariel Corporation, a major manufacturer of natural gas compressors based in Mount Vernon, Ohio, is owned by the Wright/Rastin family.

• Karen Buchwald Wright: The Chair of Ariel Corporation, she contributed $700,000 to the State Policy Network in 2019 alone, making her one of its largest individual donors.³
• The Empowerment Alliance (TEA): Wright and her husband, Tom Rastin, founded and funded TEA, a 501(c)(4) dark money group. TEA promotes the narrative that “Natural Gas is Green” while aggressively attacking solar projects.
• Direct Intervention: Unlike passive donors, Rastin has been personally involved. Testimony and emails reveal he directed funds and strategy to Knox Smart Development, a local group fighting the Frasier Solar project. This effectively weaponized a local zoning dispute into a proxy war for the natural gas industry, utilizing the family’s wealth to overwhelm local pro-solar farmers.¹⁷

2.4 Case Study: Murray Energy

Bankruptcy filings from Murray Energy, the now-defunct coal giant, inadvertently revealed the extent of its funding for the opposition. The filings showed direct payments to:

• The Heartland Institute: $130,000 to support climate denial and anti-wind advocacy.
• Legal Counsel: Payments to law firms representing “citizen” plaintiffs in Ohio wind siting cases. This confirmed that what appeared to be grassroots litigation was actually being underwritten by a coal corporation desperate to block competition.³

Table 1: Major Financial Flows to Anti-Renewable Groups

Section III: Regional Battleground I – The Midwest (Ohio & Michigan)

The Midwest has become the primary theater for land-based renewable energy conflict in the United States. The region’s vast agricultural lands are prime territory for utility-scale wind and solar, making them the target of intense obstruction campaigns. Here, the opposition is highly organized, integrating local zoning boards with state legislative strategies to create a regulatory blockade.

3.1 Ohio: The Laboratory of Solar Bans

Ohio serves as the clearest example of “legislative capture” by the anti-renewable network. The state has seen a proliferation of solar bans, facilitated by Senate Bill 52 (SB52), passed in 2021. This legislation fundamentally altered the regulatory landscape by empowering county commissioners to designate “exclusion zones” where utility-scale renewables are prohibited—a power they do not possess for fossil fuel infrastructure.²⁰

3.1.1 The Mechanism of Senate Bill 52

Prior to SB52, the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) had final authority over energy projects, ensuring a standardized state-level review. SB52 devolved this authority to local boards, making projects vulnerable to hyper-local political pressure campaigns. The bill was heavily lobbied for by organizations linked to the fossil fuel industry, including the Buckeye Institute (an SPN affiliate) and The Empowerment Alliance.²¹

• Impact: Since the passage of SB52, at least 10 counties have enacted bans or severe restrictions on solar development, effectively freezing the industry in large swathes of the state.²⁰

3.1.2 The Empowerment Alliance (TEA) in Action

As detailed in the financial section, The Empowerment Alliance (TEA) is the critical operational node in Ohio. It has spent millions on ad campaigns and direct mailers framing solar energy as a threat to farmland (“Farmland not Solar Wasteland”) and a beneficiary of Chinese manufacturing.

• Knox Smart Development: This group presents itself as a grassroots coalition of neighbors in Knox County opposing the Frasier Solar project. However, OPSB hearings revealed the extent of astroturfing involved. Jared Yost, the group’s founder, admitted under oath that the group received significant funding and strategic direction from Tom Rastin. Rastin’s involvement included reviewing Yost’s testimony and coordinating the group’s messaging to align with TEA’s pro-gas agenda.¹⁸
• Outcome: Despite the manufactured “unanimous” opposition from local townships (fueled by TEA’s campaign), the OPSB initially approved the Frasier project, noting the external influence. However, the political pressure continues to threaten the project’s viability.

3.2 Michigan: The Fight for Siting Authority

Michigan represents a counter-narrative where the state government, recognizing the obstructionist tactics at the local level, attempted to reclaim siting authority. This move sparked a fierce backlash funded and organized by the same fossil fuel-aligned network.

3.2.1 Citizens for Local Choice / Our Home Our Voice

In 2023, Michigan passed a law streamlining renewable energy siting, moving final authority to the Michigan Public Service Commission. In response, Citizens for Local Choice was formed to push a ballot initiative repealing the law and restoring local veto power.

• Kevon Martis: The central figure in this effort is Kevon Martis. Martis is a veteran anti-wind activist who has transitioned from a local agitator in Lenawee County to a regional strategist. He holds a Senior Policy Fellowship at E&E Legal (historically funded by Arch Coal) and is a frequent contributor to the MasterResource Martis acts as a “circuit rider,” traveling to townships across the Midwest to advise local boards on how to draft exclusionary zoning ordinances that can withstand legal scrutiny.³
• Dark Money Controversy: A campaign finance complaint filed in 2024 alleged that Our Home Our Voice, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit led by Martis, acted as an unregistered ballot committee. The complaint detailed how the group funneled over $53,000 to Citizens for Local Choice while hiding the original donors. This “pass-through” structure effectively shielded the ultimate funders—likely agricultural lobbies and fossil fuel interests—from public disclosure requirements.²³
• Interstate Funding: Despite the campaign being focused on “Michigan local control,” Tom Rastin (of Ariel Corp in Ohio) contributed $10,000 to the Michigan effort. This cross-border funding demonstrates the national coordination of the opposition, where donors in one state will fund obstruction in another to protect regional markets for natural gas.²⁵

Table 2: Ohio Counties with Solar/Wind Bans (Selected)

Section IV: Regional Battleground II – The Atlantic Coast Offshore Wind War

The opposition to offshore wind along the East Coast is arguably the most sophisticated component of the network. It leverages complex environmental law (NEPA, ESA) and highly emotive marine conservation rhetoric to stall projects. Unlike the land-use battles in the Midwest, this fight takes place in federal courts and the court of public opinion, targeting the “social license” of the offshore wind industry.

4.1 The “Whale” Narrative and Coalition Building

The central narrative of the Atlantic opposition is the claim that offshore wind development is killing North Atlantic right whales. This argument is particularly potent because it weaponizes the environmental movement’s own values against it.

• The Save Right Whales Coalition: This umbrella group unites various local anti-wind organizations. It was incubated by Environmental Progress (founded by Michael Shellenberger) and the Caesar Rodney Institute. The coalition’s strategy is to create a “wedge issue” that splits the environmental vote. By framing wind turbines as the “industrialization of the ocean,” they attract support from conservation-minded citizens who might otherwise support climate action.⁶
• Scientific Consensus vs. Disinformation: NOAA and marine scientists have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence linking wind survey work to whale strandings (which are largely caused by ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement). However, the coalition—funded by industry groups—persists in this narrative, using it as the basis for federal lawsuits.²⁷

4.2 Green Oceans (Rhode Island)

Based in Little Compton, Rhode Island, Green Oceans has emerged as a prominent opponent of the Revolution Wind project.

• Leadership: The group is led by Lisa Quattrocki Knight (President) and Elizabeth Knight.
• Strategy: Green Oceans mimics the output of a professional think tank. They produce detailed “white papers” claiming that offshore wind farms threaten national security (via radar interference) and will cause irreversible damage to marine ecosystems. These papers rarely cite peer-reviewed marine science; instead, they rely on reports from national anti-wind think tanks and unverified data. This “information subsidy” allows them to present a veneer of scientific rigor to local media and town councils.²⁸
• Network Ties: Green Oceans is a member of the National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance (NOOA), a coalition founded to nationalize the fight. The group has also received legal and strategic support consistent with the patterns identified in the Brown University “Against the Wind” report.³⁰

4.3 ACK for Whales (Nantucket)

Formerly known as “Nantucket Residents Against Turbines,” ACK for Whales has been the most litigious group in the region, focusing its fire on the Vineyard Wind project.

• Principal Participants: The board includes Val Oliver (Founding Director), Amy DiSibio, and Veronica Bonnet.
• Legal Lawfare: ACK for Whales has filed multiple lawsuits against BOEM and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Their lawsuits allege that the federal agencies failed to adequately consider the cumulative impact of wind turbines on the right whale population, a violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The legal arguments used in these filings frequently mirror those crafted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation in parallel cases, suggesting a shared legal strategy or counsel.³¹
• Funding: While ACK for Whales positions itself as a grassroots group of concerned islanders, the scale of their legal operations—federal lawsuits require hundreds of thousands of dollars—suggests significant external backing. They are listed as an affiliate of the Save Right Whales Coalition, linking them to the fossil fuel funding streams of the Caesar Rodney Institute.³³

4.4 The National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance (NOOA)

Recognizing that local groups were fighting isolated battles, Mandy Davis of the California-based REACT Alliance founded NOOA to coordinate opposition on a national scale.

• Mission: NOOA aims to create a unified front, sharing legal strategies and PR resources between East Coast and West Coast groups.
• Strategic shift: This marks the evolution of the movement from disparate NIMBY clusters into a cohesive national lobby. NOOA’s formation allows for the pooling of resources and the standardization of messaging (e.g., the “whale” narrative is now being adapted for Pacific marine life).¹¹

Table 3: Key Coastal Opposition Groups and Legal Challenges

Section V: The Mechanisms of Obstruction

The effectiveness of this network lies not just in its funding but in its methods. The opposition employs a toolkit of obstruction that is standardized, replicable, and scalable.

5.1 “Information Subsidies”

The concept of “information subsidies,” detailed in the Brown University report, explains how national groups influence local outcomes without necessarily providing direct cash transfers.

• The Mechanism: Local activists often lack the time, expertise, and resources to analyze complex Environmental Impact Statements or draft zoning bylaws. National groups like TPPF and CRI fill this gap by providing “subsidies” in the form of pre-written talking points, model legislation, and expert witnesses.
• Impact: This dramatically lowers the “cost” of participation for local opposition. A local homeowner doesn’t need to understand grid physics to argue against a solar farm; they simply need to read the script provided by the Caesar Rodney Institute about “grid instability.” This ensures that the arguments heard in a town hall in Michigan are identical to those heard in a county commission in Ohio.¹

5.2 Legal Lawfare: The War of Attrition

The goal of the network’s litigation strategy is often not to win a final judgment on the merits, but to inflict delay.

• The logic of delay: Energy projects rely on complex financing models with tight timelines. By forcing federal agencies to redo environmental reviews or tying projects up in appellate courts, opponents can push projects past their financing deadlines or into periods of higher interest rates/inflation, rendering them uneconomic.
• Weaponizing NEPA: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to assess environmental impacts. Opponents routinely sue alleging that the assessment was “insufficient,” a procedural argument that can halt construction even if the environmental harm is negligible.

5.3 Zoning as a Weapon

The shift from fighting state mandates to fighting local zoning is a calculated strategic move.

• Home Rule: By framing renewable energy bans as a matter of “local control” or “home rule,” the network taps into deep-seated conservative values. ALEC’s model legislation is designed to strip state siting boards of their power and devolve it to the most local level possible (townships/counties), where projects are easiest to kill through small-scale political mobilization.

Section VI: Conclusion

The opposition to solar and wind power in the United States is frequently characterized by media and policymakers as a “grassroots” phenomenon—a spontaneous uprising of rural and coastal citizens concerned about viewsheds and property values. However, a forensic analysis of the financial, legal, and organizational ties underpinning this resistance reveals a different reality. The local sentiment, while often genuine, is systematically cultivated, funded, and weaponized by a sophisticated national network of fossil fuel interests.

Organizations like the State Policy Network, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Caesar Rodney Institute act as force multipliers. They transform isolated zoning disputes into a cohesive national strategy of obstruction. They provide the capital that allows local groups to hire high-end legal counsel; they provide the “experts” who testify with authority on debunked science; and they provide the rhetorical frameworks that turn neighbors against energy development.

The involvement of specific industrial actors—such as the Wright/Rastin family (Ariel Corp) in Ohio and Murray Energy in legal funding—reveals the direct financial stake that fossil fuel incumbents have in these battles. Whether through dark money conduits like The Empowerment Alliance or through ballot initiatives like Citizens for Local Choice, the objective remains consistent: to use the mechanisms of local democracy to delay the energy transition, preserving the dominance of coal, oil, and natural gas for as long as possible.

The data shows that this is not a series of skirmishes but a war of attrition. By freezing development through local bans (like Ohio’s SB52) and federal litigation (like the whale lawsuits), the network aims to run out the clock on the energy transition. Understanding this architecture is essential for policymakers, as addressing the opposition requires looking beyond the local town hall to the national structures that empower it.

List of Abbreviations

• ACOP: American Coalition for Ocean Protection
• AFPM: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
• ALEC: American Legislative Exchange Council
• BOEM: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
• CFACT: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
• CRI: Caesar Rodney Institute
• E&E Legal: Energy & Environment Legal Institute
• ESA: Endangered Species Act
• IER: Institute for Energy Research
• NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
• NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
• NOOA: National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance
• OPSB: Ohio Power Siting Board
• SPN: State Policy Network
• TEA: The Empowerment Alliance
• TPPF: Texas Public Policy Foundation

Works cited

1. Report: Anti-Wind Groups in Southern New England Parrot Views of …, accessed February 9, 2026, https://ecori.org/report-anti-wind-groups-in-southern-new-england-parrot-views-of-fossil-fuel-backed-right-wing-think-tanks/
2. Blocking renewable energy is a top state legislative priority for …, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/state-policy-network-anti-wind-solar-power/
3. Fueling the Opposition: How Fossil Fuel Interests Are Fighting to Kill Wind and Solar Farms Before They Are Built – Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/fossil-fuel-funding-opposition-renewable-energy/
4. Market Environmentalists vs. Wind/Solar/Battery Industrialization, Sprawl – Master Resource, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.masterresource.org/free-market-environmentalism/free-market-vs-wind-solar-industrialization-sprawl/
5. Texas Public Policy Foundation – Nonprofit Explorer – ProPublica, accessed February 9, 2026, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/742524057
6. Fossil Fuel Interests and Dark Money Donors Are Behind Opposition to Offshore Wind, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.clf.org/blog/fossil-fuel-interests-and-dark-money-donors-are-behind-opposition-to-offshore-wind/
7. Railing Against the Wind – Conservation Law Foundation, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.clf.org/blog/feature/railing-against-the-wind/
8. Game Changer: US Start-up’s Small Nuclear Plants to Make Big Difference to World’s Energy Future, accessed February 9, 2026, https://stopthesethings.com/2020/01/14/game-changer-us-start-ups-small-nuclear-plants-to-make-big-difference-to-worlds-energy-future/
9. August 14, 2025 Invitation for Public Comment on the List of Candidates for the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board The U.S. Environ – National Association of Clean Air Agencies, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/SAB-Nominations-8-14-25.pdf
10. Trump administration nixed funding for California offshore wind terminal after request from climate denial group – Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/trump-offshore-wind-funding-cfact/
11. Anti-offshore wind groups target $426M grant for California port – Canary Media, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/offshore-wind/california-port-trump-grant-cut
12. Caesar Rodney, accessed February 9, 2026, https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1719247117/crk12org/uyzbs0pqi82klnpfrnqr/fy24finaloperatingbudget.pdf
13. Heartland Institute – Nonprofit Explorer – ProPublica, accessed February 9, 2026, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/363309812
14. Against the Wind: A Map of the Anti-Offshore Wind Network in the Eastern United States, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.climatedevlab.brown.edu/post/against-the-wind-a-map-of-the-anti-offshore-wind-network-in-the-eastern-united-states
15. The Empowerment Alliance – Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/the-empowerment-alliance-2/
16. Utilities’ Anti-Solar Campaign and Misinformation Debunked – Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/utilities-anti-solar-campaign-and-misinformation-debunked/
17. Fossil Fuel Interests Are Working to Kill Solar in One Ohio County. The Hometown Newspaper Is Helping. – ProPublica, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.propublica.org/article/ohio-mount-vernon-frasier-solar-fossil-fuel-metric-media
18. An Ohio solar project overcomes local opposition and misinformation – Canary Media, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/ohio-frasier-approved-local-opposition
19. Fossil Fuel Interests Are Working to Kill Solar in One Ohio County. The Hometown Newspaper Is Helping. : r/Columbus – Reddit, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/Columbus/comments/1fzch6j/fossil_fuel_interests_are_working_to_kill_solar/
20. Ten Ohio counties have banned large scale wind and solar – pv magazine USA, accessed February 9, 2026, https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/08/24/ten-ohio-counties-have-banned-large-scale-wind-and-solar/
21. Senate Bill 52 resources | Ohio Power Siting Board, accessed February 9, 2026, https://opsb.ohio.gov/processes/senate-bill-52-resources
22. Who’s behind a ballot initiative to repeal Michigan’s renewable… – Canary Media, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/enn/whos-behind-a-ballot-initiative-to-repeal-michigans-renewable-energy-siting-laws
23. Tuckerman v Our Home Our Voice Inc – State of Michigan, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/CFR-Complaints/2024/01/Tuckerman-v-Our-Home-Our-Voice-Inc.pdf?rev=cb0f4fa841b4485c8a6558ae0de92080&hash=508C83EEDE4AD34A20AF36177CADE976
24. Complaint: Cash illegally funneled to anti-solar group | Crain’s Detroit Business, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.crainsdetroit.com/politics-policy/complaint-cash-illegally-funneled-anti-solar-group
25. How Fossil Fuel Interests Are Fighting to Kill Wind and Solar Farms Before They Are Built | Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/How-Fossil-Fuel-Interests-Are-Fighting-to-Kill-Wind-and-Solar-Farms-Before-They-Are-Built-1.pdf
26. About – Save Right Whales Coalition, accessed February 9, 2026, https://saverightwhales.org/about
27. 300 Strong Attended New Jersey Sierra Club and NJ Wind Works Coalition Rally for Responsibly Developed Offshore Wind – Event Recap, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey/blog/2023/06/300-strong-attended-new-jersey-sierra-club-and-nj-wind-works-coalition
28. Meet the New England anti-wind group aligning with Trump – POLITICO Pro, accessed February 9, 2026, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/09/18/meet-the-new-england-anti-wind-group-aligning-with-trump-00557830
29. 1 Date: August 8, 2025 To: Chairman Ronald T. Gerwatowski and RI EFSB Members State of Rhode Island Energy Facilities Siting Boa – RIPUC, accessed February 9, 2026, https://ripuc.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur841/files/2025-08/SB-2022-02%20EFSB%20Supplemental%20letter_13%20Aug%202025.pdf
30. Offshore wind foes launch national coalition – POLITICO Pro, accessed February 9, 2026, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2024/08/09/offshore-wind-foes-launch-national-coalition-00173244
31. About – ACK FOR Whales, accessed February 9, 2026, https://ack4whales.org/about
32. ACK For Whales, Wampanoag Tribe / Aquinnah, Coalition of Charter Fishing Groups from Four States and Seven Environmental Champions Sue Federal Government Over Wind Projects – Business Wire, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250528627111/en/ACK-For-Whales-Wampanoag-Tribe-Aquinnah-Coalition-of-Charter-Fishing-Groups-from-Four-States-and-Seven-Environmental-Champions-Sue-Federal-Government-Over-Wind-Projects
33. Our Affiliates and other Opposition Groups – Green Oceans, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.green-oceans.org/our-affiliates
34. N MAGAZINE September 2025 by Nantucket Magazine – Issuu, accessed February 9, 2026, https://issuu.com/n-magazine/docs/september_2025

Addendum

Here’s an addendum that the report provided when “Robert Bryce” was specifically queried in the context of the report, and the text below is numbered for inclusion in the report (but otherwise not added into it. In the context of the “Architecture of Obstruction,” Bryce functions as a key supplier of the narrative framework used by both national think tanks and local activists to delay or block projects.

1.5.2 Robert Bryce and the Manhattan Institute

Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute (an SPN affiliate), plays a critical role in shaping the movement’s narrative. The Manhattan Institute has historically received funding from ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. Bryce produces high-profile content arguing that wind turbines pose severe dangers to birds and public health, and he frequently characterizes renewable energy as “land-hungry” and ecologically destructive. His work is often cited by local groups to give their opposition the veneer of economic and environmental legitimacy.

That addition query returned the following additional material on Robert Bryce:

Yes, Robert Bryce appears frequently in the research material as a central figure providing intellectual and media support to the anti-renewable network. His work serves as a primary source of the “information subsidies” (reports, talking points, and media content) that local groups use to justify opposition.

He is directly associated with several of the national and local entities detailed in the report:

• • Center of the American Experiment: This Minnesota-based State Policy Network (SPN) affiliate published Bryce’s 2021 report, “Not in Our Backyard.” The report, which catalogs local government bans on renewables, was published the same year the Center received $20,000 from the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and $250,000 from the Stand Together Trust.
  • Manhattan Institute: Bryce has served as a senior fellow for this think tank, which is also an SPN affiliate. The institute has historically received funding from ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. In this capacity, Bryce has produced content arguing that wind turbines pose severe dangers to birds and public health, narratives that are frequently cited by local opposition groups.
  • Green Oceans: The research identifies a direct link between Bryce and this Rhode Island-based anti-offshore wind group. Green Oceans hosted Bryce as a featured speaker, illustrating how national figures are deployed to lend credibility to local “grassroots” organizations.
  • Ohio Senate Bill 52 Context: Bryce actively tracks and promotes data regarding the rejection of wind and solar projects in Ohio. He has publically championed Senate Bill 52 (the legislation allowing local counties to ban solar/wind), framing the resulting bans as proof that “the public” opposes renewable energy, rather than the result of coordinated legislative capture.

Note: I’ve followed Robert Bryce’s Medium and Substack posts for quite a while. I’ve previously researched his fossil fuel affiliations in several of my posts. It’s been an education and from the looks of this list, maybe something of a fixation. What can I say? Those lying about and misrepresenting solutions to the climate change threat to human society is something that seems morally questionable to me.

1. I’m Rubber, You’re Glue: Robert Bryce, Fossil Fuel Shill, is just one of the many attacking Bill McKibben and his latest book, Here Comes the Sun

2. New Atlantis is a Fossil Fuel Shill Factory

3. Bryce and His Snow Job: Apparently, Climate Change Action is the Work of Anti-Math Nincompoops and Elite Conspiracists

4. Robert Bryce’s Anti-Environmental Pro-Renewable Energy Transition NGOs Argument is a No Go Argument

5. Bryce Hyped Focus

6. WOW. I Never Meta-Hypocrisy I Didn’t Like, or, Who is Robert Bryce and Why Does He Write Such S***?

7. Who is Lying? Those Who Say Fossil Fuel Companies Engage in Misinformation and Influence Campaigns against Renewable Energy, or Those Who Say Renewable Energy Advocates Have Pants on Fire?

The post The Architecture of Obstruction first appeared on David Guenette.

The headlines are full of Bill Gates touting some version of “Bill Gates Doesn’t Think Climate Change is Important.”

It is hysterical. The general reaction mainly proves that too many reporters either can’t read or are too busy writing to read.

In his recent “Three tough truths about climate,” published on October 28, 2025, and sub-titled “What I want everyone at COP 30 to know,” Uncle Bill sternly reproaches the world. This sermon appeared in GatesNotes. I guess he has an in there.

I suspect that Bill Gates, with all his money, probably doesn’t worry about what he pays for services. But with the publication of “Three tough truths about climate: What I want everyone at COP30 to know,” he should ask for his money back. At minimum, I’d suggest a title change. Maybe something along the lines of, “Like, Duh.”

Most news articles and opinion pieces about Gates’ recent pronouncements have rankled me. Me being rankled is no big thing, but there may be an important point being raised beyond simply how to annoy me. Of course, one sure-fire way is to state that Gates has declared that the climate change thingy is over, which is definitely not what he is saying. What he is saying is that the challenge of climate change is very important, but we might want to reframe this within the context of other pressing needs like severe poverty and threats to human health.

Like, duh.

Unfortunately, he’s missed a few studs in his reframing.

Climate Change Work is Poverty and Health Work

Of course, climate change has always contained human health and poverty issues within itself, and Gates’ pronouncements are oddly timed considering that renewables have emerged as the least expensive, faster, and most easily deployed widescale energy generation. Faster, cheaper, and wider isn’t the only strong argument, though. With renewables “build-once, generate always” systems don’t require constant re-fueling and the infrastructure for constant re-fueling demands. Renewables is the prime “give once, bless forever” counter to poverty. If you can get to a location by the sort of trucking that general contractors typical own or rent, with construction equipment general contractors use regularly, solar and batteries systems can be installed, and I’m talking anywhere there’s a road, but there’s dirigibles too, and boats and helicopters. Bringing power to people oppressed by poverty and illness has become a realistic option and a world-wide option at that.

I’m sure Bill Gates understands the connection between energy access and productivity and health, so doubling down on the spread of renewables seems like a large part of the answer to the other needs he’s identified. I’m not saying that there are no other mechanisms to address poverty and health across the world. I’m saying that getting energy into those areas that lack widely and equitably available energy—yes, a still shockingly high number—is a foundational element toward Uncle Bill’s non-climate change solutions. Sending in the gas tankers sure ain’t the solution, not unless the problem you are trying to solve is how to keep petrostates in power.

Of course, there are direct connections between renewable energy, climate change, and today’s and tomorrow’s climate threats that make poverty and illness that much more likely. Sure, wealthy countries have the means to more effectively adapt to the consequences of global warming, but for developing countries effective adaptation is weaker, and by far. The reason to keep climate change the priority is that it is a preventative, just like the variety of Gates’ global health initiatives: we can work toward a climate that kills and sickens fewer people in vulnerable parts of the world if we keep the rise in average global temperature more in check.

The fact is that climate change is a problem set of a different order than humans have faced, despite Uncle Bill’s efforts to reduce climate anxiety. If we don’t draw down greenhouse gas emissions, mankind is f—ed in a way our species hasn’t previously been f—ed, and by all current markers—including the fossil fuel industry’s in-place plans for long-term LNG expansion and their other well-funded wish list—we’ve already slipped beyond 1.5 C. Uncle Bill may be right when he points out that 2-point-something C sometime by 2100 is well within adaptation means for those from wealthy countries. He may call for that wealth to be shared equitably and therefore expand our capacity to adequately adapt to climate change more widely. But there is the very real danger that GHG is a runaway train, considering our slow pace to date in reducing these emissions and in the effort to quickly and widely transition to clean energy. We are already threatening planetary boundaries. There are tipping points that demand serious concern. The human world is under threat.

Yeah, not extinction level threats for us monkey boys, sure, but the potential for cataclysmic collapse of our vulnerably complex societies, that is already too real, and if not by 2100 but instead more likely later is not a comfort, no matter how many fusion reactors eventually get built. We don’t need magic solutions sometime in the future. We have the material understanding today to reverse GHG emissions and this understanding has become common knowledge. Just like the proverbial instruction for escaping from a hole in the ground, which is to first stop digging, we have to stop dumping GHG into our air. We already have the capacity to transition from fossil fuels for much of our energy needs, and the economic promise therein can be widely and fairly distributed.

Oh, Bill

It’s ironic that Gates’ arguments for focusing on alleviating human suffering rather than on the energy transition should arrive at the point of pushing nuclear and fusion down the road. It makes you suspect that he’s got some interest in data enters and AI.

He (or whoever was hired) writes:

In short, climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems. We should deal with them in proportion to the suffering they cause. And we should use data to maximize the impact of every action we take.

To the first sentence above I reply, “So stipulated.” Yes, climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems.

To the second sentence above I reply, Wow! How does one exactly determine the “in proportion to the suffering” clause? Is this at any given moment, or can we consider the effects of actions today to suffering in the years ahead? If the politically minded take up the misinterpreted meaning of this recent Gates missive and deemphasize climate change, won’t suffering in the future climb as we miss 1.5 C and race to 2.0 C, or 3.0 C, or higher. Can’t we confidently conclude that the proportion of suffering due to climate change is the greatest?

What is telling is Gates’ confidence that the the average global temperature isn’t going to go up that much, which makes me wonder if he has others read the news for him and they haven’t recently provided updates. Or maybe he doesn’t want to offend the King of the Green New Scam bent. That seems to be one of those little peccadillos billionaires have been displaying, playing nice with President Big Oil Stooge and his happy mission to keep fossil fuels going well past their natural use-by date.

To the third and last sentence of the quote above, this seems like a suggestion we move toward singularity, if indeed singularity brings us omniscience, and, well, don’t you know, he’s got interests in AI. I’ll have to check my data on this just-typed sentence and see if I’ve maximized the impact of derision.

Bill Gates has spent a lot of money trying to make things better, that is indisputable, although I’d suggest that the existence of billionaires reflects a serious pathology in our society is also indisputable, but that’s another rant. For the purpose of today’s complaint about Gates’s recent edict, I‘ll suggest the overall piece is kinda inhuman and gives nerds a bad name.

We finally have reached the point of technological development for clean energy to be clearly economically competitive, but we should slow down? How the hell does that reduce suffering?

To Relieve Human Suffering, First Take the Patient’s Temperature

Early on he writes:

This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.

Although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people.

How is not raising the energy wealth for all not a solid prescription for reducing problems of poverty and disease? As for climate change not being the only or even the biggest threat to lives and welfare, what timescale should we consider? He’ll be dead by 2100, I’ll be dead by 2100. But slow work on addressing GHG emissions today makes 2100 pretty darn expensive, and unhealthy, and the cure is today for any hope of a better tomorrow. I’m pretty sure this is a physics-thingy.

He follows the quotes above with some proactive defense (“I know that some climate advocates will disagree with me…”), but his overall point is hardly radical, nor is it in any way “anti-climate.” However, the overall result, judging by how this jeremiad has been taken, is “anti-climate.”

He doesn’t make this any better with his Truth #1, which is, “Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization.”

Let’s define terms, please, since “end of civilization” is mighty broad. After all, humans aren’t likely to go extinct from climate change, as miserable many will be, and as dead many may be, because of climate change. And humans, short of extinction, will collect together and form civilizations. But Gates doesn’t spend much time looking at how civilization is defined. Here’s a general definition from a jewel of our current civilization, Wikipedia:

A civilization is any complex society characterized by the development of the state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic systems of communication beyond signed or spoken languages (namely, writing systems).

A more realistic definition relevant to our day is “a system with great complexity and fragility that promotes hyper-consumption over sustainability, stressed by population growth and dangerous income disparity.”

Today’s Western society is incredibly intertwined with the rest of the world. This spans food production, energy, trade goods, raw materials… you know the drill. Western society is fragile, with major shocks capable of cascading into disasters, especially of the economic sort. Renewable energy got going back in the Oil Crisis of the 1970s, if you’ll recall. If anything, the supply chains are now more prone to disruptions, so failing to imagine what a series of major shocks might do to our society, that’s just tone-deaf on many levels.

I’m someone who thinks that a lot of climate fiction looks at apocalypse, collapse, and dystopia, and I think that’s too bad (hey, unless written snappily, I guess), and fighting over a can of beans in a desert wasteland or clinging to a floating fragment in a drowned world, well, that’s all she wrote, Katy bar the door. I think it is more useful to write climate fiction that looks at where we are and where we can be, and that makes the more interesting story, too. Nonetheless, there are better and worse scenarios regarding climate change and even the relatively good ones aren’t great and the worst ones are that much more terrifying. In terms of a complex society and all its various fragilities, ineffective and slow effort to address climate change is more than able to bring about a mightily high jump in mankind’s suffering.

Gates’ Truth #2 is that “Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate.” Yeah? So? Omniscience would be nice, but Truth #2 could have said, “Human and environmental outcomes are the best way to measure our progress on climate.” He goes on to say that quality of life is the better measure and even cites U.N. tools for making such assessments, but quality of life is an obvious metric. It isn’t that man’s greatest goal is to continuously read thermostats. The whole thing about fighting climate change is to improve the quality of life, like, literally. Um, so, again, so stipulated, but again, so what.

One of the most chilling pieces in Gates’ piece is his casual projection of 3.0 C by 2100. Oh, sorry, he said 2.9 C, so I guess that future world will be okay. A bit hot under the collar maybe, but…what? Is he kidding?

With Great Wealth Comes Great Energy

Bill Gates didn’t really get great value from the authors of this piece.

He makes a valid observation when he says, “From the standpoint of improving lives, using more energy is a good thing, because it’s so closely correlated with economic growth. This chart shows countries’ energy use and their income. More energy use is a key part of prosperity.”

I’m with ya, Bill!

Oh, wait. He then says, “Unfortunately, in this case, what’s good for prosperity is bad for the environment. Although wind and solar have gotten cheaper and better, we don’t yet have all the tools we need to meet the growing demand for energy without increasing carbon emissions.”

It’s disappointing to see that Bill Gates hasn’t been paying attention.

It would have been nice to say something like, “If the wealthy nations of the world build out their own economies to support renewable energy, and then share that with the poor countries, we’ll all have more energy and all be more wealthy and all without increasing carbon emissions. But he didn’t say that.

In fact, there’s far too little talk about shaping the world’s economies around renewable energy buildout and the positive consequences for improving international relations even while expanding geopolitical advantage. The cost savings from reducing war would be a boon in and off itself. Foreign aid—including renewable energy buildout in poor countries—would increase the overall wealth of the world, and thus decrease the spending on foreign aid. All of this has onlypositive upsides, unless, of course, you are wedded to the concept of zero-sum gaming. You know who loves zero-sum gaming? Really rich people. Power comes not from the actual sums of wealth but from the relative differential between the rich and the poor.

Uncle Bill is confusing. He goes on to claim a talking point of climate action:

But we will have the tools we need if we focus on innovation. With the right investments and policies in place, over the next ten years we will have new affordable zero-carbon technologies ready to roll out at scale. Add in the impact of the tools we already have, and by the middle of this century emissions will be lower and the gap between poor countries and rich countries will be greatly reduced.

Isn’t he aware that the renewable energy transition has what it needs, but the effect of cumulative emissions is already set in place. He argues energy innovations have already curbed emissions and the guy is right, but unfortunately, we’re still adding emissions, and emission draw down has not yet been enough to compensate for additions of GHG. Even if we’re closing in—which we are—this calls for continuing our focus on climate change, not confusing people about climate change. Hoping for innovations is not the same as implementing existing innovations at sufficient scale and within advantageous timelines. Existing innovations is better than hoped-for innovations, I’m pretty sure.

Build, Baby, Build is the order of the day, and when I say build, I mean renewable energy and electrification and not new gas plants and LNG terminals. Gates’ hope for nuclear remains beyond the timelines we should be scrambling to meet ASAP. If you want to reduce suffering and improve the world’s health, maybe there’s better ways to spend that money today, but unfortunately, this message is not the core message in this recent diatribe by Uncle Bill. I’m as much in favor as the next guy of innovation to decarbonize the hard to decarbonize sectors of the economy (e.g., industrial processes, agriculture, and more), but we have the tools today to replace emissions-generating energy with clean energy, and it is unconscionable to delay and dilly-dally.

Truth #3: This is a Really Bad Position Paper

“Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.” That’s Truth #3.

Sure, let’s expand the wealth of all nations, delivering prosperity widely. Sure, if you have a well-insulated building and air conditioning and reliable and affordable electricity to run it, you are more likely to survive climate change’s increasing heatwaves.

Here’s the Uncle Bill nugget of wisdom:

This finding [that people with protection from the consequences of climate change have higher survival rates] is exciting because it suggests a way forward. Since the economic growth that’s projected for poor countries will reduce climate deaths by half, it follows that faster and more expansive growth will reduce deaths by even more. And economic growth is closely tied to public health. So the faster people become prosperous and healthy, the more lives we can save.

Yeah, of course. But how do poor countries get the power and wealth they need to afford such protection? This has been covered above: provide energy cleanly and replace costly dirty energy. Using fossil fuels to provide that energy makes the climate conditions worse. Ergo, use clean energy to save more lives. Huge numbers of people across the globe are energy poor, lacking energy infrastructure, but clean energy can leapfrog more expensive—and dirty!—energy infrastructure.

The Two Priorities

The report, or sermon, or diatribe ends with Gates’ strongly suggested two priorities for COP 30:

1. Drive the green premium to zero;
2. Be vigorous about measuring impact.

Uncle Bill, we know this about green premiums, your term for equalizing the cost for clean energy solutions to non-clean energy solutions. Been there, done that for clean energy already, so the real question is how to drive innovation for the hard to carbonize sectors, and the real answer is to have fossil fuels account for their true cost that includes direct health problems and the consequences of climate change, both very high coasts and both resulting from the pollution inherent in burning shit to boil water.

We also know that there is wealth available to undertake expansive clean energy buildout. Tax billionaires and corporations, and, like a lot, and fairly. Cut the trillion-dollar annual U.S. military budget, and, like a lot, and intelligently. Make carbon emissions pay, whether through a Carbon Fee and Dividend program or some other means, but make sure to address economic hardship by paying in dividends to those in need. Annual revenues for fossil fuels world-wide is somewhere near $5 trillion, so let’s get to the point where we don’t give fossil fuel corporations and petrostates so much money. We have better things to spend on.

Speaking of spending, the whole “measuring impact” point is to direct spending. Here’s the intro paragraph for this priority:

I wish there were enough money to fund every good climate change idea. Unfortunately, there isn’t, and we have to make tradeoffs so we can deliver the most benefit with limited resources. In these circumstances, our choices should be guided by data-based analysis that identifies ways to deliver the highest return for human welfare.

This is weird from a billionaire, frankly, especially one who touts innovation and the promised return on investment. We have plenty of good climate change ideas that have already established economies of scale—yeah, renewable energy and batteries—and as we build more and more, the economies of scale improve even more. I’m not sure how much additional measurements are needed for this good climate change idea to have a full-out green light.

Why, Oh Why?

What is the point of Gates’ piece, Three tough truths about climate?

If I were cynical I’d suggest he is looking to sow doubt about climate change, but I’m not that cynical. Gates has put up a lot of money for climate change work he could have instead used to buy a yacht or to go on a ride into orbit. I’m happy enough to assume he means well, and I know that diseases and vaccines are important priorities of his.

I loved Bill McKibben’s Substack on the Gates report, called “Climate Gates,” published on October 31, 2025, on The Crucial Years. The sub-title of McKibben’s latest is wonderful: “Maybe we don’t need billionaire opinions on everything.”

McKibben starts this way:

I feel quite strongly that we should pay less attention to billionaires—indeed that’s rather the point of this small essay—so let me acknowledge at the outset that there is something odd about me therefore devoting an edition of this newsletter to replying to Bill Gates’ new missive about climate. But I fear I must, if only because it’s been treated as such important news by so many outlets—far more, say, than covered the UN Secretary General’s same-day appeal to international leaders that began with a forthright statement of the science.

Maybe I just should have waited for this issue of The Crucial Years, because Bill M and I seem very much in agreement about the Gates piece. I especially loved this line, “It was wrong of him to write it because if his high-priced PR team didn’t anticipate the reaction, they should be fired.”

Amen, brother.

The Path Forward is Here and it’s a Good Deal

There are economic sectors that are currently resistant to decarbonization, it’s true. One example is concrete, which some estimates suggest contributes 8% of greenhouse gases each year, and this manufacturing process is still waiting for technology to provide useful solutions (there are some likely developments in the pipeline, fortunately). But what hard-to-decarbonize sectors mainly tell us is to take on those other sectors in which we already have economically effective solutions, and these include transportation, electricity production, and building heating and cooling, and these add up to a good chunk of the carbon load.

Cost is often cited as a barrier to clean electrification, but this is a framing issue, not an indisputable block. The big challenge for solar/battery generation buildout is that it is mainly upfront costs, but this is based on the short-term financial considerations that are rife in our economy: next quarter’s stock price or profit. Guess what? The world is not a short-term economic entity. The geological and climatological timelines make a twenty-year span seem like a blink of the eye.

Here’s a longer-term view on natural gas electricity generation and costs:

Over a 20-year period, the estimated total amount spent to buy natural gas for an average-sized (around 400 MW) combined-cycle electricity generation plant can range from approximately $500 million to over $1.5 billion, depending heavily on natural gas prices, the plant’s capacity factor, and its efficiency.

Of course, the totals above are only for the natural gas consumed by the plant. Here’s the cost to build the natural gas plant in the first place:

As of 2025, the estimated cost to build a 440 MW natural gas electricity generation plant generally ranges from approximately $880 million to $1.1 billion for a combined-cycle plant, and potentially less for a simple-cycle combustion turbine plant.

How much money is spent to build a 440 MW solar and battery electricity generation plant in 2025? The low-to-high range comparison between solar/battery and natural gas electricity significantly favors solar/battery:

The estimated cost to build a 440 MW utility-scale solar farm with co-located battery storage in 2025 is approximately $523.6 million to $946 million. This estimate is based on the average capital costs for utility-scale solar and battery energy storage systems (BESS).

Sure, such estimates represented above can vary greatly in the real world and there are plenty of details and conditions to consider. But whatever details one might want to nitpick pales when you add to the comparisons the more or less equal cost for the natural gas you have to buy over the twenty year period, and so the score remains solar/battery 1, natural gas 0. And then there is the issue of total Cost of Operations (COS) that is mostly maintenance and repair, and this also significantly favors solar/battery.

While twenty-year finance planning is different than the short-termism of today’s stock price-obsessed boardrooms, twenty years or thirty or forty is well within the sort of planning we have for retirement and a variety of institutional investing. It’s a wonder that pension plan managers and other long-term investors aren’t wholesale shifting their portfolios to solar/battery given the clear advantages, and that’s not even considering the economic benefits of reducing the consequences of climate change. And, oh, did I forget to mention that clean electricity prices will be lower, too?

Go figure. Maybe it is a matter of pension management fees. Maybe long-term investment is also addicted to making a fast buck. Maybe we are so uncomfortable looking beyond the next month that we’re willing to risk burning down the world to avoid thinking things through.

But don’t look to me to figure this out. I’m not a businessman.

But how come Uncle Bill isn’t pointing this out, hmmm? Long-term investment in clean and cheaper energy for all goes a very long way to alleviating poverty and disease and goes into effect as soon as the solar/battery generation is online. So, Bill, maybe we can be asking that COP 30 make clear to the businessmen of the world that clean energy is a great long-term investment strategy with live-saving benefits.

Green Savings Bonds, anyone?

Maybe we should work on ways to discourage the epidemic of short-termism that’s killing our world.

Maybe that’s Truth #1.

The post The Headlines are Full of Bill Gates’ Latest Wisdom—It’s Hysterical! first appeared on David Guenette.