With respect to Donald Trump, the walking talking orange apocalypse, Reuters “Sustainable Switch” emailed that “the Republican win is unlikely to dramatically slow the U.S. renewable energy boom” and there we agree since there is no such boom (and as usual we grumble that we can’t give you a link to the item because they don’t seem to know how to embed them). Euronews green, with a link, offers “‘Drill, baby, drill’: What Trump’s victory could mean for the future according to climate experts” (experts, no less) and then adds: “Trump’s victory could be a ‘major blow’ for global climate action but experts say it may not slow the roll of the green transition.” Experts again. And if you’re getting your information from people who believe such things, you may well be deceived about a great many things.

BTF

Robinson Meyer at Heatmap fretted, again via an email for which no online link exists, that Trump’s “victory in Tuesday’s election will have cascading consequences for the climate, the clean energy economy, and America’s leadership in the world.” But he thought, slightly more plausibly and in a piece the email linked to which mirabile dictu is online, that perhaps Trump would not repeal the IRA. Which he won’t, since Congress not the White House passes legislation. But it’s not why we call this thought more plausible.

It’s because such a repeal “would also significantly raise taxes on energy companies (and automakers) while hurting Trump’s own voters” and with any luck they’re just as venal as Kamala Harris or Joe Biden’s. As they might well be. However, again, spending money on technology that doesn’t work very well is not the same thing as saving the planet, and it’s questionable whether one should get one’s information about what’s happening on that planet from people who confuse them.

Canary Media is more representative in tone, offering:

“How Trump’s second term could derail the clean energy transition
The Inflation Reduction Act might not be completely repealed, but plenty of other climate policies could be undone – and fossil fuels could be unleashed.”

Unleashed. And here comes the flood. Plus the fire, wind and etc. But once again of course the United States is already a massive producer and consumer of, well, fossil fuels, so they were already “unleashed”. And there was no other possible policy unless the unicorn power suddenly came massively online, which Kamala Harris couldn’t have done either.

It’s not news. And it doesn’t look much like it either.