614

In Louisiana, natural gas—a planet-heating fossil fuel—is now, by law, considered “green energy” that can compete with solar and wind projects for clean energy funding. The law, signed by Republican Governor Jeff Landry last month, comes on the heels of similar bills passed in Ohio, Tennessee, and Indiana. What the bills have in common—besides an “updated definition” of a fossil fuel as a clean energy source—is language seemingly plucked straight from a right-wing think tank backed by oil and gas billionaire and activist Charles Koch.

Louisiana’s law was based on a template created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative organization that brings legislators and corporate lobbyists together to draft bills “dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.” The law maintains that Louisiana, in order to minimize its reliance on “foreign adversary nations” for energy, must ensure that natural gas and nuclear power are eligible for “all state programs that fund ‘green energy’ or ‘clean energy’ initiatives.”

Louisiana state Rep. Jacob Landry first introduced a near-identical bill to the model posted on ALEC’s website and to the other bills that have passed in Ohio, Tennessee, and Indiana. (The Washington Post reported in 2023 that ALEC was involved in Ohio’s bill; ALEC denies involvement.) Landry, who represents a small district in the southern part of the state, is the recipient of significant fossil fuel-industry funding—and he co-owns two oil and gas consulting firms himself. During his campaign for the state Legislature, Landry received donations from at least 15 fossil-fuel-affiliated companies and PACs, including ExxonMobil (which has also funded ALEC) and Phillips 66. Those donations alone totaled over $20,000.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] omgboom@lemmy.dbzer0.com 132 points 3 weeks ago

Those donations alone totaled over $20,000.

It always amazes me how cheaply these traitors sell us out.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 47 points 3 weeks ago

That's only the public money. Who knows how much dark money they got for it.

[-] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

Reminds me of when Sam Bankman Freid (FTX Crypto guy) said he was surprised it only cost him lile $50k to buy off a politician or something. And the Oceangate CEO apparently said that if someone complains about the safety of his sub he'll just "buy a senator".

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 weeks ago

I can't remember where I was reading this but being cheap to purchase is by design.

If politicians were expensive to buy, the public outcry would be significantly higher and would also incur more scrutiny. So there is this balance of bribing a politician vs their voters being upset that their politician taking too much money. Oddly there doesn't seem to be a floor of "our politician can be bought too cheaply."

The other side of this is that until Citizens United is overturned, there is no limit to how much a company can spend on special interest groups. This is where politicians fear the most. If they don't go along with whatever issue, then they have to raise more money to run for re-election, which puts more pressure on them to accept the bribe in the first place.

TL;DR: money in politics is killing our democracy

[-] skisnow@lemmy.ca 56 points 3 weeks ago

And remember, billionaires didn’t get to be billionaires by spending money that they didn’t think would result in more money coming back to them.

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 41 points 2 weeks ago

We had a ~~good~~ run.

Best of luck to whatever the tardigrades evolve into after a few billion years... if any of them survive the hellscape we're turning our planet into.

[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Eh.

Surface and shallow water life will suffer, but there's plenty of life beyond that bigger than tardigrades that will supplant us eventually.

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Hopefully. But I'm not about to pretend I know where the positive feedback loops we've unleashed will go. Maybe the climate starts to improve a few decades after we're all gone; maybe the greenhouse effect becomes so intense that planet earth becomes molten.

Even extremophiles have their limits - we may well have set Earth on a trajectory that ends in absolute lifelessness. Hopefully not. Probably not. But we've taken the keys to the planet and drove it off a cliff... whether or not anything can be made from the wreckage remains to be seen. But not by us.

[-] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

It’ll probably be some algae in Pripyat that’s adapted to eat radiation and this planet is actually Krypton just way before anyone starts flying with the power of the sun

[-] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 32 points 3 weeks ago

All this for donations equivalent to the price of a used Toyota Camry? What a cheap suit Landry is.

[-] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Is it a bad thing that I read this as “cheap slut”?

[-] mystik@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago

So, if the fed government can sue CA, claiming that states cannot impose additional requirements on egg production because of a federal-level definition + the supremacy clause, how can these states reclassify gas as 'green energy', since the grids are inter-state electrically connected, and the Fed has to set the standard for inter-state commerce?

Or perhaps I'm just reaching to far expecting some kind of consistent application of the law. shrugs

[-] TotallynotJessica 13 points 3 weeks ago

There is no law, only Trump's will and wealthy interests

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

consistent application of the law

In the Un-United States of Trashcanistan? Lol.

[-] yucandu@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago

I had to deal with this shit in my environmental studies class in uni. Apparently the forestry industry has been promoting their own brand of propaganda that says burning wood, the most greenhouse-gas-producing fuel on the planet, is environmentally friendly because it is "renewable".

Great, we'll all be dead from global warming but at least in theory the trees that burned down from the wildfires could have reabsorbed that carbon over a couple centuries.

[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 weeks ago

Burning wood is sustainable and if there weren't 8 billion people on the planet that need temperature regulation it would have little impact on the environment. It's always about scale.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago

Literally anything is sustainable by this argument, what are you even talking about?

[-] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Literally anything is sustainable by this argument

I think that is precisely the point they were making.

[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago
[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago

No matter how I read it, it sounds like you're saying "it's sustainable under the right circumstances" and I just don't see how that's useful to even acknowledge.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago

Burning wood is green iff the wood was harvested from trees planted for this purpose and all equipment used in the process from planting to harvesting to processing is entirely running on renewable energy.

Seems like it'd be easier to just use solar power and heat pumps for heating

[-] ianonavy@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I feel like the bigger issue is all the CO2 emitted from burning literal carbon. Using fossil fuels is just burning trees with extra steps (millennia of burial and compression).

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

The difference is that the carbon in the wood is in the short carbon cycle while the fossil fuels were sequestered. Carbon wise it doesn't matter if the tree burns or rots (ok rotting does keep some of it in life and soil, but burning leaves some as char).

[-] yucandu@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

See I think that's the forestry industry propaganda that's somehow made its way into environmentalist circles.

The differences you cite are irrelevant in the fight against global warming, where burning wood is the absolute worst. The carbon cycle doesn't matter in the context of how much CO2 are we putting in the atmosphere now, today. It takes too long to matter.

[-] zildjiandrummer1@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Nah, the particulates emissions and VOCs from burning wood is still very bad at scale. "Green" doesn't really mean anything, I think by definition, since Big Oil was watered it down so much. Similar to the word woke, socialism, etc.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, we do it in the UK too. "Biomass" is just impatient coal.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] pticrix@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 weeks ago
[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 20 points 3 weeks ago

All they know how to do is lie and be violent

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

You just described fascists.

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

There is a whole group of people that really believe that the concept 'perception is reality' is a permission to make up the truth. In other words they believe if they tell a lie enough that it will become reality.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago

So far, they seem to be right.

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Reality always comes crashing down on those who ignore it.

There will be a reckoning. But it'll be far too late and the ones primarily responsible won't be held accountable.

The reckoning will be all of us suffering together, but not equally.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

Corruption this raw unfiltered and cheap makes you wonder how much time needs to get wasted until we outlaw buying politicians again.

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Buying politicians is here to stay unless we want to do the violent revolution thing.

Sorry.

[-] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago

I hate the CCP but at least they don't deny science.

Wtf is this shit lol.

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago
[-] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Alright, I gotta hand it to them; this is by far one of, if not THE DUMBEST THING I've ever fucking read. It takes SKILL, DEDICATION, AND HARD WORK to be THIS fucking stupid. I'm genuinely impressed at how hard they've worked to divorce themselves from reality, it's truly a marvel of cognitive restructuring. I'd say there's no way they can top this, but we all know that they'll find one in the next month, and it'll make me question my sanity once again. Congratulations.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

And then the same people will turn around and look you dead in the eye and say "the left can't even define what a woman is"

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

But they don't like green energy. Why would they ruin as perfectly good fossil fuel that way?

[-] vegeta@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

It’s got what plants crave

[-] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

No surprise really. Back in October last year the Premiere of Alberta (Canada's very own Howdy Arabia) passed a proposal to stop labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant and instead celebrate it as a "foundational nutrient for all life on Earth”.

[-] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

Ah yes. Stupidity knows no bounds.

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

This is what you get when you give conservatives power.

Hopefully America remembers that going forward, but probably not.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

I remember when ohio wasn't like that. I miss the purple state I grew up in

[-] qarbone@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This is what happens when you don't make words mean things. Evil people erode language until white is black is green and the empathetic are evil. And you're mired in an mud wrestling match with disingenuity, while evil's cronies shoot the audience.

[-] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Can someone with more knowledge than me explain why something like e85 isn't more universally accepted? I love the idea, works in all makes and years of cars (it's a myth that it doesn't work in old cars, it works fine if you upgrade the rubber), burns cleaner (maybe?), is somewhat renewable, supports farmers. However it's like 20% less efficient. But it's awesome for turbo cars and race engines too.

In my view I'd rather go down that route instead of batteries, where we are all forced to scrap millions of perfectly good cars, for battery cars that are like a throwaway phone, unrepairable and expensive, and controlled by the mfg/gov to do whatever they want.

Sure public transport is maybe better but not for large area places. We are always going to need cars.

[-] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

Ethanol burns like crap, produces the same or more emissions than gasoline, and generally is a terrible fuel.

The reason we started making E85 was because there was concerns about not having enough gasoline production in the states. Then we discovered fracking, and we started to "drill baby drill".

Electric or Plug In Hybrids are a much better option. You can produce the fuel entirely with solar, wind, nuclear, etc. if you put your mind to it, they're much more efficient, and even accounting for the battery production emissions, they surpass greenhouse gas emissions within a few years of ownership.

Electric batteries are expensive and hard to fix, yes. This needs to be worked on. However, the cost of ownership is much lower, so you aren't "bleeding out" costs over time like an ICE. It's just a big "wham" for a batt replacement.

Also, an electric battery doesn't typically just go completely dead all at once. It loses 10-30% of it's capacity after the first 8-10 years. That means if you had 200 miles of range, now you have 140-180 miles of range. Unless the battery has a fault or the electrical system completely fails, this is fine. Most people drive less than 50 miles round trip for a commute. Even at double that, you still have 1/3 of your batt left.

If you're a two car family, IMHO, one fully electric and one plug-in hybrid is the way to go.

If you're a one car family who takes lots of road trips, plug-in hybrid. If not, all electric.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Because burning ethanol is both dirty and hot. The only reason ethanol is an option is because of corn subsidies. It is hard on the engine and not good for the environment.

Also, battery cars are not unrepairable and are only expensive because manufacturers are focusing on the high-end market. Batteries don't just die at 10 years. They are just below 80% capacity, which is not that bad. Also, batteries in cars can be replaced. It is expensive, but not that much more expensive than buying a new gas engine and replacing it in a car.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago

But, but, it's natural!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
614 points (100.0% liked)

News

31409 readers
2892 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS