583

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
[-] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 hour 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”.

[-] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 hours ago

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

Wtf is this shit lol.

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 hours ago
[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago

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

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours 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"

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 37 points 16 hours 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 15 hours 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 15 hours 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 16 hours 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

[-] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours 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.

[-] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago
[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours ago

And Mercury enemas!

[-] omgboom@lemmy.dbzer0.com 128 points 1 day ago

Those donations alone totaled over $20,000.

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

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago

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

[-] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours 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 22 hours 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

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 20 points 20 hours ago

All they know how to do is lie and be violent

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

You just described fascists.

[-] pticrix@lemmy.ca 20 points 21 hours ago
[-] yucandu@lemmy.world 27 points 23 hours 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 23 hours 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 7 points 21 hours ago

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

[-] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

Literally anything is sustainable by this argument

I think that is precisely the point they were making.

[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 3 points 20 hours ago
[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 15 hours 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 20 hours 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

[-] zildjiandrummer1@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours 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.

[-] ianonavy@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours 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 18 hours 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 18 hours 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] skisnow@lemmy.ca 53 points 1 day 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.

[-] mystik@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day 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 12 points 23 hours ago

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

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

consistent application of the law

In the Un-United States of Trashcanistan? Lol.

[-] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 day 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 1 day ago

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

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 17 points 23 hours 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 5 points 18 hours ago

Ah yes. Stupidity knows no bounds.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

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

[-] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day 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 20 hours ago

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

Sorry.

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

This is what you get when you give conservatives power.

Hopefully America remembers that going forward, but probably not.

[-] vegeta@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

It’s got what plants crave

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

News

30957 readers
2612 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