They are taking money committed to a wind project and redirecting it towards burning fossil fuels - because what other lesson can we take from a global energy shock other than to increase our exposure to the next one? The company itself (France's Total) had already committed to the wind deal, so now the Trump admin is letting them off the hook, and using Trump's irrational refusal to issue licenses for wind power as the excuse for why the deal wasn't working out as originally planned.

▲

alephnerd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Total is also committed to expanding LNG - Total [0] and Oil India [1] are collaborating on a $20 Billion LNG extraction megaproject in Mozambique which was paused due to an Islamist insurgency during which Total-and-Oil India-funded forces allegedly committed massacres against civilians [2].

The US, France+India, and China have been competing over this project for decades.

These are businesses - no one cares about morals, only interests. And it is in France's interest to unlock these kinds of LNG projects.

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mozambique-says-tota...

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-india-sees-resta...

[2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gw119ynlxo

▲

TheSpiceIsLife an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I drive commercially.

There are no fully electric, or even hybrid, options for the type of vehicle I drive.

And even if there were, are you (tax payers) prepared to buy it for me, because I’m not due for an upgrade for about another 400,000 kilometres.

Can’t put wind generated watt-hours in my diesel tank.

Can’t put wishful thinking in my cars petrol tank.

▲

AnthonyMouse 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> And even if there were, are you (tax payers) prepared to buy it for me, because I’m not due for an upgrade for about another 400,000 kilometres.

400,000 km is around two years for a commercial driver, isn't it?

▲

mindslight an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems like you should want the types of vehicles that can avoid using fossil fuels to do so, to keep your own prices down?

What is with this attitude of reflexively interpreting the development of alternatives as if they are mandatory ?

▲

TheSpiceIsLife an hour ago | parent [-]

Whether I wanting them or not is irrelevant to the fact that they presently don’t exist, and that I’m not due for a new vehicle for years.

I did try to make that clear in the comment you replied to.

The battery technology doesn’t exist.

	▲	mindslight an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think you misread my comment. I'm asking why you wouldn't want other types of vehicles that can be electrified to be electrified, such that there is less demand for the diesel that yours requires. For example I've got a tractor that burns diesel, for effectively homeowner use. I too am not going to be replacing this piece of capital equipment any time soon (even though electrical would actually be better in a lot of regards). But since trucking is reliant on diesel and quite demand-insensistive, the Epstein war recently made diesel prices jump 60%. Whereas the fewer economically-critical vehicles there are being powered by diesel (even just the short range ones), the less that price would have spiked.

▲

brewdad an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This deal has zero to do with someone like you. This impacts our electrical grid. Now instead of harvesting renewable wind energy we will be burning LNG to power that portion of the grid.

I suppose there are still some diesel generators out there, so they might burn that instead. Of course, that only makes you worse off.