You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
European elites have been annoyed or worse by the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. Its name is misleading; this is the largest American industrial policy since the New Deal — one that intends not only to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also to stand up a whole new industrial supply chain for green energy and manufacturing located in the U.S. and North America.
That project doesn’t sound great to many Europeans. French President Emmanuel Macron complained it was “super aggressive.” The French and German economic ministers traveled to Washington in February to lobby the Biden administration for exemptions from IRA rules (and actually got a receptive hearing). More recently Europe seems to have softened on the law; Bloomberg reports that elites are making their piece with EU businesses setting up shop in North America to be eligible for IRA subsidies. But this is still not ideal.
In the abstract, one can sympathize with European complaints over the U.S. flexing its still-unparalleled economic might to direct a greater share of cutting-edge economic production towards itself. But this isn’t merely a question of economics. As the recent IPCC report details, the world is still careening towards catastrophic global warming even given the fairly extensive climate policies most countries have enacted. Fighting that crisis trumps any possible complaint about economic unfairness.
But there’s a deeper problem here. The European Union taken together has economic heft not far off from the United States, with a population of 450 million and a price parity GDP of about $24 trillion. It absolutely has the capacity to enact an IRA-style industrial policy scheme — indeed, the continent has been crying out for one for over a decade. The IRA is a perfect opportunity to clear away the irrational and deeply harmful budget rules that have hamstrung the EU economy, return prosperity to the continent, and fight climate change to boot.
For the last 15 years most of the European Union, and especially the eurozone currency area, has been suffering a largely self-inflicted crisis of economic stagnation.
When the 2008 financial crisis hit, Europe barely avoided a galloping economic collapse, but it still faced a serious recession, particularly in the eurozone periphery of Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal. These countries were confronted with classic debt problems as revenues fell while spending on social benefits rose — a situation made worse because those nations did not control the European Central Bank and thus couldn’t rely on it to print money to prevent a self-perpetuating debt crisis. The EU eventually responded by essentially bailing out the banks that had lent to the ailing countries, but they disguised it as broader economic relief and then demanded punishing austerity measures in the rescued countries.
The austerity binge after 2010 pummeled the broader EU economy, and created a Great Depression-scale catastrophe in Greece and Spain. In the eurozone, unemployment had peaked and started to come down by mid 2010, but once the debt crisis and austerity poison took hold, it soared again to over 12 percent by 2012, where it remained for two years, and came down only with agonizing slowness. In Spain unemployment peaked at 26 percent, in Greece 28 percent.
Since 2009, eurozone growth has been dismal compared to America — which itself suffered a growth disaster during the 2010s, as I have previously argued. Yet the U.S. still managed inflation-adjusted growth per person of 19 percent between 2009 and 2021; the eurozone figure is 11 percent. In France the figure is just 8 percent; in Spain 1 percent, and in Greece negative 17 percent. Italy has not grown at all for more than 20 years. Adding insult to injury, all that austerity didn’t even help with Greece’s debt-to-GDP burden, because its economy shrank just as fast as the debt total.
This was a disaster for climate change and European energy security. European investment in renewable energy plummeted during the 2010s, from a high of about $30 billion in 2011 to just $10 billion in 2018. In sunny Spain and Italy investment virtually ceased during this period. Instead many European countries, particularly Germany, came to rely on cheap Russian natural gas for their core energy needs. That made them greatly vulnerable to Russia pressure when Vladimir Putin cut down gas supplies in an attempt to force Europe to stop supporting Ukraine’s effort to fight off Russian aggression.
To be fair, as I previously wrote here at Heatmap, Europe has been conducting a crash renewable investment program in response to Putin’s war that has been an amazing success, all things considered. But if it had spent the 2010s building out green energy, it would have been far less vulnerable to Russia coercion, its emissions would be much lower, European inflation today (driven by skyrocketing energy costs) would be considerably less, and Putin might even have thought twice about the invasion.
What is called for is a Europe-wide spending, borrowing, and investment policy to add to existing EU renewable subsidies. Rather than just decarbonization, the goal should be to restore full employment and production, and create a green energy and technology supply chain in Europe itself.
In other words, Europe needs its own Inflation Reduction Act. But still one hears austerity dogmatism from the highest European quarters. The EU is currently renegotiating its budget policies and German Finance Minister Christian Lindner recently published an article in the Financial Times arguing that “[s]ound public finances are a prerequisite for enabling economic growth in the EU,” and therefore the old strict rules about deficits and debt “must remain untouched.”
It would be hard to imagine a better disproof of this argument than the evidence cited above. The result of the old rules was the Greek crisis that threatened the structure of the EU itself. Europe’s lousy economic performance undoubtedly contributed to the decision of British voters to leave the EU in 2016. Yet Lindner has learned nothing.
The actual proposed reforms to the pact were released this week, and while they are a step in the right direction, they are mainly a loosening of the austerity straitjacket, not a removal of it — allowing countries more leeway as to how they will cut debt and deficits. That’s far short of what’s needed.
European commentators who aren’t austerity addicts often point to the political obstacles to doing Europe-wide industrial policy. But America has its own obstacles that are nearly as difficult to overcome. Thanks to our anachronistic Constitution, we had to get our climate bill past Joe Manchin, a literal coal baron. It’s frankly shocking that Democrats managed to pass anything with a zero-seat majority in the Senate, let alone the largest climate bill in history.
So for any Europeans who can see sense, the IRA should be seen as a golden opportunity. As noted above, the EU’s lunatic budget rules are most vulnerable in a crisis, and this can be such a crisis.
It may seem presumptuous for an American — coming from the land of suburban sprawl, four-ton SUVs that get eight miles to the gallon, and 3,000 square foot desert McMansions — to be lecturing Europe about what it needs to do about climate and economics. But I’m coming from a place of deep affection for the continent. I have been inspired by Europe’s welfare states, its city infrastructure, and even its tax authorities. America’s institutions in these areas are humiliating, pathetic failures by comparison.
That’s precisely why I want to see Europe strong, prosperous, and confident once more — so it can be the best version of itself, and provide an even better example for the rest of the world.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
How the Migratory Bird Treaty Act could become the administration’s ultimate weapon against wind farms.
The Trump administration has quietly opened the door to strictly enforcing a migratory bird protection law in a way that could cast a legal cloud over wind farms across the country.
As I’ve chronicled for Heatmap, the Interior Department over the past month expanded its ongoing investigation of the wind industry’s wildlife impacts to go after turbines for killing imperiled bald and golden eagles, sending voluminous records requests to developers. We’ve discussed here how avian conservation activists and even some former government wildlife staff are reporting spikes in golden eagle mortality in areas with operating wind projects. Whether these eagle deaths were allowable under the law – the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – is going to wind up being a question for regulators and courts if Interior progresses further against specific facilities. Irrespective of what one thinks about the merits of wind energy, it’s extremely likely that a federal government already hostile to wind power will use the law to apply even more pressure on developers.
What’s received less attention than the eagles is that Trump’s team signaled it could go even further by using the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a separate statute intended to support bird species flying south through the U.S. from Canada during typical seasonal migration periods. At the bottom of an Interior press release published in late July, the department admitted it was beginning a “careful review of avian mortality rates associated with the development of wind energy projects located in migratory flight paths,” and would determine whether migratory birds dying because of wind farms qualified as “‘incidental’ takings” – harm or death – under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
While not stated explicitly, what this means is that the department appears to be considering whether to redefine these deaths as intentional under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, according to Ben Cowan, a lawyer with the law firm Troutman Pepper Locke.
I reached out to Cowan after the eagle investigation began because his law firm posted a bulletin warning that developers “holding active eagle permits” might want to prepare for “subpoenas that may be forthcoming.” During our chat earlier this month, he told me that the eagle probe is likely going to strain financing for projects even on private lands that wouldn’t require any other forms of federal sign-off: “Folks don’t want to operate if they feel there’s a significant risk they might take an eagle without authorization.”
Cowan then voiced increasing concern about the migratory bird effort, however, because the law on this matter could be a quite powerful – if legally questionable – weapon against wind development.
Unlike the Endangered Species Act or the eagle protection law, there is currently no program on the books for a wind project developer to even obtain a permit for incidental impacts to a migratory bird. Part of the reason for the absence of such a program is the usual federal bureaucratic struggle that comes with implementing a complex statute, with the added effect of the ping-pong of federal control; the Biden administration started a process for permitting “incidental” impacts, but it was scrapped in April by the Trump team. Most protection of migratory birds under the law today comes from voluntary measures conducted by private companies and nonprofits in consultation with the federal government.
Hypothetically, hurting a migratory bird should be legally permissible to the federal government. That’s because the administration loosened implementation of the law earlier this year with an Interior Department legal opinion that stated the agency would only go after harm that was “intentional” – a term of art under the statute.
This is precisely why Cowan is fretting about migratory birds, however. Asked why the wind industry hasn’t publicly voiced more anxiety about this potential move, he said industry insiders genuinely hope this is “bluster” because such a selective use of this law “would be so beyond the pale.”
“It’s basically saying the purpose of a wind farm is to kill migratory birds, which is very clearly not the case – it’s to generate renewable electricity,” Cowan told me, adding that any effort by the Interior Department would inevitably result in lawsuits. “I mean, look at what this interpretation would mean: To classify it as intentional take would say the purpose of operating a wind farm would be to kill a bird. It’s obviously not. But this seems to be a way this administration is contemplating using the MBTA to block the operation of wind farms.”
It’s worth acknowledging just how bonkers this notion is on first blush. Is the federal government actually going to decide that any operating wind farm could be illegal? That would put entire states’ power supplies – including GOP-heavy states like Iowa – in total jeopardy. Not to mention it would be harmful overall to take operating capacity offline in any fashion at a moment when energy demand is spiking because of data centers and artificial intelligence. Even I, someone who has broken quite a few eye-popping stories about Trump’s war on renewables, struggle to process the idea of the government truly going there on the MBTA.
And yet, a door to this activity is now open, like a cleaver hanging over the industry’s head.
I asked the Interior Department to clarify its timeline for the MBTA review. It declined to comment on the matter. I would note that in mid-August, the Trump administration began maintenance on a federal dashboard for tracking regulations such as these and hasn’t updated it since. So we’ll have to wait for nothing less than their word to know what direction this is going in.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Santa Fe County, New Mexico – County commissioners approved the controversial AES Rancho Viejo solar project after months of local debate, which was rendered more intense by battery fire concerns.
2. Nantucket, Massachusetts – The latest episode of the Vineyard Wind debacle has dropped, and it appears the offshore wind project’s team is now playing ball with the vacation town.
3. Klickitat County, Washington – Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson is pausing permitting on Cypress Creek Renewables’ Carriger solar project despite a recommendation from his own permitting council, citing concerns from tribes that have dogged other renewables projects in the state.
4. Tippecanoe County, Indiana – The county rejected what is believed to have been its first utility-scale solar project, flying in the face of its zoning staff.
5. Morrow County, Oregon – This county is opting into a new state program that purports to allow counties more input in how they review utility-scale solar projects.
6. Ocean County, New Jersey – The Jersey shoreline might not get a wind farm any time soon, but now that angst is spreading to battery storage.
7. Fairfield County, Ohio – Hey, at least another solar farm is getting permitted in Ohio.
Talking NEPA implementation and permitting reform with Pamela Goodwin, an environmental lawyer at Saul Ewing LLP.
This week’s conversation is with Pamela Goodwin, an environmental lawyer with Saul Ewing LLP. I reached out to her to chat about permitting because, well, when is that not on all of our minds these days. I was curious, though, whether Trump’s reforms to National Environmental Policy Act regulations and recent court rulings on the law’s implementation would help renewables in any way, given how much attention has been paid to “permitting reform” over the years. To my surprise, there are some silver linings here – though you’ll have to squint to see them.
The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.
So walk me through how you see the Trump administration handling renewable energy projects right now under NEPA.
In general, the federal government has been much more reluctant to the timely issue of permits in contrast to what we might be seeing on the more traditional side of things.
But that’s separate from NEPA — it relates to public notice and comments and the opportunity for third parties to get involved, ensuring any decision-making on the government side is done in a way that’s evocative of a fair system. On the NEPA side, I don’t know if they’re going to treat renewables any differently than they’re going to treat other sorts of projects. That’s different, from a policy perspective, [from] how they’re handling the permits.
If, from a policy perspective, the federal government is less inclined to make a determination about a particular project — or if it decides that it doesn’t like wind, for example, and isn’t going to issue a permit — that’s different than the procedural elements associated with a NEPA review.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in the Seven County case that agencies can be granted a lot of deference in their reviews under NEPA, seeing it more as a procedural statute than a substantive roadblock. What will this lead to?
I think that what we’re seeing – and every agency’s different – but what the court said is that lower courts should defer to the agency to establish their own protocols under NEPA. They’ve begun to streamline the process by which they issue permits, issue notices of those permits, and give people the opportunity to comment on them.
What we’re anticipating will happen if the court gets its wishes – and candidly, I think this is a good thing for developers, on both the renewables and non-renewables side – is that we’ll see more expeditious permitting from the federal government.
You may not like the determinations. There’s a possibility that certain permits are denied if the nature of the permit is in conflict with the federal government’s policy and intention. But you’ll get a quicker decision than you used to get. And if there’s a will to issue a permit, you’ll get it faster.
We’ve heard the concept of permitting reform or NEPA reform as a leveling of the playing field, but in this environment, it is not entirely clear that’ll be the case. Where does the battleground turn then for those who get, as you put it, rejections faster?
That’s a great question. Regrettably, the immediate battleground is the courts. There is certainly a right and an opportunity for anybody who feels a determination was incorrect to challenge that, and to challenge the particular agency’s implementation of NEPA.
Okay, but what’s the remedy here if renewables companies are just getting rejections faster from the Trump team?
Without a real-world example, it’s hard to give you legal theories, but they will always exist. It’ll be circumstantial, and good lawyers always come up with good arguments. I don’t think this issue is fully resolved, either. The Supreme Court has done a favor to everybody by at least defining the issue, but now we’ll have to see what happens as agencies make these kinds of determinations.