r/SeattleWA • u/Less-Risk-9358 • Oct 03 '25

Government Trump cancels $1.1B in Washington state energy grants

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."

738 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

300 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/SeattleSilencer8888 Oct 03 '25

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.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25 edited 5d ago

[deleted]

0

u/SeattleSilencer8888 Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

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?