mhaze,

You keep tossing out “wins,” but let’s stop pretending every move is a triumph just because Trump did it.

Windmills:
Blocking clean energy isn’t victory. Wind power is already cheaper and growing faster than coal or gas. Killing it doesn’t make America stronger - it hands future energy leadership to China and Europe.

“Destigmatising greenhouse gases”:
A clever phrase for rolling back protections that prevent pollution and climate damage. That’s not winning, that’s trading public health and long-term stability for a short-term applause line.

Tariffs (15% vs 10%):
Tariffs are taxes on Americans. Saying “we won because it’s only 10%” is like bragging your mugger left you $10 instead of taking it all. You don’t negotiate your way out of a hole by digging deeper.

EPA rollback:
Calling this “the biggest deregulatory action in history” doesn’t change what it is: making it easier for industries to pollute while taxpayers cover the clean-up. Even conservative economists warn this just shifts costs to disaster relief and healthcare.

Yes, Trump has made moves. The real question is whether these moves help the country.

Declaring every headline a “win” is just cheerleading. A serious argument would explain how banning renewables, taxing imports, and gutting safeguards actually improves America’s future.

Until then, it’s less “winning” and more just waving pom-poms.

"The real question is whether these moves help the country."

A majority of USians think it helps and also appreciate that its what they voted for.

"making it easier for industries to pollute"

Calling CO2 pollution is the victory of propaganda over logic.

"Even conservative economists warn this just shifts costs to disaster relief and healthcare. "

You just make this stuff up in the hope no one will notice its rubbish.

I think you misunderstood the 10% v 15% point. Britain is paying less in tariffs and that's a victory for Brexit.

I thought "Renewables are Cheaper" had been buried long ago when
people realised that the batteries, the subsidies, the $Trillion
transmission lines, the loss of farmland, the 20yr lifetime etc
etc etc was taken into account.

That's known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy, mhaze.

//Majority of USians think it helps… what they voted for.//

Popularity doesn’t automatically make something good policy. Majorities have been wrong before - on segregation, on Iraq, on countless failed economic experiments. If “the crowd likes it” is your metric for success, you’ve abandoned any claim to principled governance.

//Calling CO2 pollution is propaganda over logic.//

Propaganda? The US Supreme Court legally classified CO2 as a pollutant in Massachusetts v. EPA, citing its role in public health risks. That’s not leftist spin - that’s settled US law and mainstream science. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you a contrarian thinker, it just rewrites history and science for comfort’s sake.

But please, tell us all about how more CO2 has a greening effect on the planet...

//You just make this stuff up… rubbish.//

You keep saying that, but it's mere projection.

Economists - conservative and otherwise - have repeatedly shown deregulation shifts costs onto disaster relief and healthcare. From wildfire suppression to respiratory illness treatment, taxpayers pick up the bill while polluters pocket the profits. If you want to deny that, you’ll need more than “rubbish” as your argument.

//Britain is paying less… victory for Brexit.//

Even if true, “less bad” tariffs aren’t victories, they’re symptoms of a global trade war that Trump started and Americans are funding. Having to negotiate emergency carveouts isn’t triumph; it’s damage control.

Your defence isn’t about whether these moves actually strengthen the US long-term - it’s about dressing up partial wins and temporary applause as historic achievements.

Fallacies, denialism, "Nuh-uhs"... you're not even pretending to be reasonable anymore.

"Majorities have been wrong before"

And they've been right before. But they are closer to the action and are more likely to be right than some TDS suffer on the other side of the world.

"tell us all about how more CO2 has a greening effect on the planet..."

Seems I don't need to, you already know it. And wonder of wonders, you got it right.

"If you want to deny that, you’ll need more than “rubbish” as your argument."

You make these assertions without a skerrick of proof or evidence and then demand that I disprove it. Not playing.

"//Britain is paying less… victory for Brexit.//

Even if true,"

No no it is true. You'll have to just trust me on this but 10% is less than 15%.

"Your defence isn’t about whether these moves actually strengthen the US long-term -"

Oh I've explained how the tariffs strengthen the US several times over, even on this thread. But you don't want it to be true and are therefore never going to be convinced.

Bezza,

The fact that renewables are cheaper has been “buried” only if you ignore the actual data.

Independent market reports (including the CSIRO’s GenCost and multiple global studies) consistently show that, even when you factor in batteries, transmission upgrades, and 20-year lifespans, new solar and wind projects are cheaper than new coal or gas.

Subsidies? Fossil fuels in Australia still receive billions annually in tax breaks and direct support - far more than renewables.

Transmission? Coal required massive grid buildouts too; we just forget because they were built decades ago.

And as for farmland: solar and wind take a fraction of the land used by fossil fuel extraction and are increasingly integrated with farming (agrivoltaics, wind grazing).

The “hidden cost” narrative sounds convincing until you actually run the numbers, which is why energy operators and investors continue to shift to renewables.

It’s not ideology, it’s economics.