US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
The U.S. government’s decision to reimburse TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to relinquish offshore wind leases and instead invest the same amount in domestic oil and gas projects is prompting sharp criticism over climate policy, governance, and energy strategy. Commenters argue it signals an aggressively pro-fossil-fuel, anti-renewable stance driven by ideology, personal grudges, and industry influence, undermining both decarbonization goals and investor confidence in long-term U.S. energy projects. Broader concerns surface about democratic accountability, the power of lobbying, and whether citizens should hedge against perceived political and climate instability in the United States.
Structure and financial details of the deal
- Several comments dig into the primary source press release:
- TotalEnergies previously paid ~$928–930M as lease purchase “deposits” for offshore wind areas under the prior administration.
- The current administration is terminating those wind leases, reimbursing up to that amount if TotalEnergies invests the same sum in US oil, gas, and LNG projects.
- Some see this as: “US pays a foreign company $1B to abandon wind and build fossil fuels.”
- Others frame it as mainly a refund for canceled leases, not a net new payment, though they note the political choice to tie it to fossil reinvestment.
- Exact economics (penalties, lost opportunity, comparison to prior subsidies) are described as unclear but intentionally opaque.
Energy policy, costs, and externalities
- Offshore wind is portrayed by the company as less affordable than gas-fired plants; many commenters argue this ignores:
- Climate and pollution externalities of gas extraction and combustion.
- Long-term cost declines and systemic need for new capacity.
- Some argue fossil fuels are already becoming uncompetitive in market economies; US subsidies keep them alive.
- Others counter that new fossil capacity can still recoup investment in a few years and improves “energy security” by shifting revenue from foreign producers.
- There is debate over whether the US is truly “self-sufficient” in fossil energy given refining constraints, export behavior, and global pricing.
Environmental impacts: wind vs fossil
- Bird and whale harms from wind are discussed; multiple comments note:
- Absolute bird deaths from turbines are tiny compared to buildings, cats, and pollution.
- Modern siting and design significantly reduce collisions, and turbines can be curtailed during migrations.
- “Clean coal” is debated:
- Anthracite is cleaner on particulates and some pollutants but still high in CO₂.
- Carbon capture and storage is criticized as costly and niche relative to simply building more renewables plus storage.
Democracy, corruption, and institutional trust
- Many see the deal as emblematic of fossil-fuel capture of US policy: large transfers to industry, rollback of renewable support, and regulatory favors after major donations.
- Some describe the US as sliding toward oligarchy or “kleptocracy”; others call that exaggerated doomerism.
- There is extended debate over:
- Low turnout, cynicism, and “both sides are the same” narratives.
- How much voters versus donors actually drive outcomes.
Strategic and personal responses
- Commenters worry the US is becoming an unreliable venue for long-horizon renewable investments.
- Individuals describe hedging strategies: dual citizenship, foreign property, moving to Europe or Canada, or investing personally in rooftop solar and EVs.