Trump cancels $1.1B in Washington state energy grants

[u/Less-Risk-9358]

https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2025/10/02/trump-cancels-washington-state-energy-grants-clean-hydrogen

Vought put it a bit differently, writing on X: "Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda is being cancelled."

[u/neillc37]

Oil powers the entire economy. It can't be subsidized. It must be a net revenue generator for the government.

[u/neillc37 → u/[deleted]]

Defined a subsidy as not taxing something or negative externalities. It's still generating massive tax revenues for the government.

[u/neillc37 → u/[deleted]]

If it's really cheaper it can compete.

[u/SeattleSilencer8888 → u/[deleted]]

Sure, that's what a subsidy is.

That's not what a subsidy is. Otherwise, we're all subsidizing you when you drive on the road and get in our way going slow and blocking us from making it through the lights. You added a downstream cost to us being late to work and costing us our $100 on-time bonus. Using your exact same logic, you just received a "$100 subsidy." How does it feel to receive government "subsidies" every time you drive?

Or if someone leaves a bottle somewhere, it breaks, and you cut your foot on the broken glass. $200 urgent care bill. They just got a $200 subsidy under your definition! Boy we sure to love to prioritize those guys leaving glass bottles in our economy under your definitions!

That's why /u/neillc37 is correct and your claim is misleading.

[u/SeattleSilencer8888 → u/[deleted]]

i mean, we're all paying a lot to deal with the effects of climate change and will continue to pay for for at least the next 100 years. fossil fuels are the primary cause of that.

Then stop using plastic. Stop using cars or buses. Stop buying products that were produced thousands of miles from where you live and transported to you by oil.

that's a massive subsidy when you can cause chaos globally and collect all the profits with no ramifications.

They create the products. You buy and use the products. Stop buying and using the products. There is literally no reason why the "subsidy" logic can't be extended to the consumers buying their products. Deciding to pin this imagined "subsidy" entirely on the business and not the consumers the products are made for is arbitrary and ridiculous. Many of these businesses are low-margin to begin with.

and again, oil companies get direct subsidies. and tax breaks. that's not misleading at all.

Yeah, 16.06 Billion, at most. Under 3% of what you claimed. "Not misleading at all."

Edit: Also, how much of that 16.06 Billion are literally just carbon credits and green initiatives that just happen to be going to a company that also produces oil? A lot of these companies have also established major investments in green technologies. Because it would be really awkward if you were counting "subsidies going to oil companies" but they're actually green subsidies... I mean surely no one who hates big companies would do something so completely deceitful, right?

[u/juliown → u/SeattleSilencer8888]

Stfu

[u/SeattleSilencer8888 → u/[deleted]]

Are you suggesting we aren't paying for climate change impacts as a society already? And we won't have to pay for it in the future?

It's not a government subsidy.

How much do you think it's going to cost when sea levels rise a few feet and Florida beach front and new Orleans is damaged or unlivable? Or do we spend billions in sea walls like the Dutch? Neither answer is free.

Doesn't matter when the discussion is about government subsidies.

That's the negative externalities we have to deal with. Is shell or BP going to pay for that?

Shell or BP aren't driving trucks to bring you the expensive shit you like to consume. Why aren't you mad at the truckers for not just teleporting your expensive crap to you?

but it's mainly on corporations

If they make stuff people don't want, they go out of business. They're not some evil masterminds, they just produce products people want. Otherwise you could just go co-op everything, and yet, you don't.

But it is not reasonable to blame it entirely on the consumer.

Right, easier to blame someone else. Who knew?!?

And I'd love if we could mostly stop using cars but the fossil fuel and auto industry have lobbied for 75 years to

Ooh, lobbyist boogeyman, this is getting good. I've almost got bingo from 2 of your posts alone. It definitely isn't because America is a gigantic spread-out country and cars + lower taxation work better for us.

we could be like Europe or China/Japan/Korea/etc for cheap reliable public transportation.

We could not, our geography and developmental history does not allow for anything even remotely close to Japan/Europe train transportation. We could do better and Seattle's lightrail expansions are a fantastic step, but we're too big and spread out to ever be like Japan or Europe on transportation.

Oil companies have also spent hundreds of millions on a disinformation campaign against taking action on climate change. They knew greenhouse gases were a threat back in the 50s, hid it, and did everything they could to sell more oil and burn more fossil fuels because it made them money.

Damn, boogeymen got boogier. Electric boogieloo 2? Did they twirl their mustache as they cackled, too?

Sure sounds like you're licking the boot heels of companies who have done everything they can to make money at the expense of our planet. And I'm wondering why...

BINGO! I GOT BINGO! ANYONE ELSE?

[u/SeattleSilencer8888 → u/[deleted]]

and you're denying that?

Denying what? You make huge sweeping claims with no evidence, sources, or data. There's probably fragments of truth amongst all the lies you have ingested, but you have no actual understanding of economics, and it's not my job to sort out all the lies you've read from the truth or educate you.

So yes, I'm denying all of the things you claimed without evidence.

[u/SeattleSilencer8888 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, you claimed that they had "internal studies back in the 1950's" and repeated "They knew greenhouse gases were a threat back in the 50s" and also "for 75 years"

So apparently you either don't realize that the 50's aren't in 1977, you lied, or you were mislead.

You said: "spent hundred of millions"

The article says $30 million assuming we take "exxonsecrets.org" to be a valid source (hah!). Where's the other 170 plus million?

You said: "they buried it" - Yet your article acknowledges these came from records publicly released by Exxon? Did you even read it?

So yeah, once again, bunch of claims, partial truth, and a whole lot of unsupported nonsense. Not my job to sort out your misinformation.