Comment by daft_pink
10 hours ago
I think it's a little bit more nuanced than what you say and that they generally are trying to increase energy supply while withdrawing from using heavy government subsidies or extensive regulations to pick the winners and losers.
From a demand side, they aren't looking to restrict demand, but want to have ample supply to meet the demand.
If that was true they would have let incentives for new energy infrastructure (which can be net positive, given energy is a national level concern), draw down in a way that didn't disrupt/destroy existing investment.
You can alter forward looking policy sensibly in a day. But you can't redline years of cooperative investment on the same day without destroying tremendous value (of the kind you claim to be working toward), credibility and trust.
I am baffled that performative flailing gets interpreted as progress, with such thin narratives.
The deeply counterproductive actions taken ostensibly to increase US investment in manufacturing are more of the same.
The destruction of valuable US research and capabilities, in the name of fiscal responsibility, only to continue fiscal irresponsibility is more of the same.
The destruction of diplomatic and defense alliances and influence, in the name of being stronger, is more of the same.
The private masked army roaming cities, harassing people with low relevance to their purported purpose, in the name of making the country safer: more of the same.
They all involve some truth, and then loud damaging counterproductive execution. Unless loud chaos is value.
Withdrawing permits for in construction offshore wind projects, and forcing utilities to keep operating coal plants they want to shut down is picking winners and losers.