Americans subsidize all energy sources, not just renewable ones

Commentary for The Nebraska Examiner, published April 10, 2025

Folks can get animated when it comes to discussions of climate science and energy production. Rather than the facts alone, confirmation bias and ideological rigidity can creep in to one’s seemingly common-sense position.

For example, some argue against renewable energy by saying that currently accepted scientific theory on climate change is a “hoax” or a “scam.” These are loaded terms, not material to an actual argument against the current scientific consensus. Nor does such an accusation effectively argue against alternative energy sources.

Even granting that the current global consensus of climate experts is somehow an elaborate hoax, how would that negate the positive dividends of non-polluting renewable energy? The answer is it would not. The argument is irrelevant.

Truth matters

The truth is the opposite: rather than harmless, the burning of fossil fuels is indeed harmful to the environment and the health of living things. Don’t believe me? Go start your car and leave the garage door closed. (Don’t if you want to live.)

Another popular argument posits that government subsidies mask the true economic liability that is renewable energy. While this seems to fly in the face of the reality that the wind and sunlight are free (and infinite), it is true that Americans have some tax credits available for more efficient home energy infrastructure (such as rooftop solar, geothermal HVAC, etc.). And government has directly subsidized wind and energy projects at the commercial production level.

But if the idea is that government assistance proves the economic futility of an industry, oil and gas take the booby prize. According to the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. government ranks second in the world in its support of the oil and gas industry.

Per IMF, the U.S. federal and state governments give the fossil fuel industry over $20.5 billion in support each year through the tax code, inadequate royalty rates and direct funding. Also per the IMF, U.S. renewables were subsidized to the tune of $15.6 billion in FY 2022.

The truth is, all energy production types are subsidized in the United States, at various amounts and for various reasons.

Fact-based decisions

Still, we must ask: Is it possible to set political and ideological considerations aside and make smart, fact-based choices for our shared future of energy consumption and production in Nebraska?

Anyone who lives here knows Nebraska produces comparatively little oil and gas. According to the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE), Nebraska’s crude oil production in 2021 was only 3.68% of the petroleum products consumed in the state. Nebraska’s natural gas production in 2021 was only 0.18% of the natural gas consumed in the state.

But we enjoy an abundance of wind and an enviable amount of sunshine. Needless to say, all or close to all of the solar and wind energy consumed in Nebraska is also produced in Nebraska. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable resources (mostly wind) provided 32% of Nebraska’s total electricity net generation in 2023.

Among a wealth of energy choices, does it make sense, both economically and in terms of real environmental challenges, to argue that the only energy resource Nebraska is unable to produce in abundance — fossil fuels — should be the sole energy resource we rely on?

If we are to discourage Nebraskans from generating their own clean — and virtually free — energy, shouldn’t we be certain that abandoning the pursuit of that free energy resource is a wise thing to do?

Renewables worth it

So far, I have heard no good arguments against continued expansion of renewable energy resources. Yes, wind and solar require infrastructure (just like oil and gas). Yes, the industry is subsidized (just like oil and gas). Yes, there is environmental impact (just like oil and gas). And yes, there are
taxpayer-funded incentives (just like oil and gas).

The worst argument, in my opinion, tries to hobble renewables for being “intermittent.” What do we do at night or when the wind stops blowing? A rooftop solar system can feed extra power back to the grid on a sunny day, then switch to pulling from the grid at night. During a cloudy, windless February, we burn some coal or other fuel to keep the lights on, then reap the March winds and the summer sun.

The answer is, we use them all. But the more renewables we use, the longer “all” energy sources —including finite ones like oil and gas — will be available. How does that not makes sense?

A Quiz for the Nebraska Delegation

Unpublished Editorial

“L’etat, c’est moi.”
—Apocryphal saying attributed to Louis XIV of France

Here’s a fun quiz for the Nebraska Congressional delegation. It’s an easy Yes/No quiz — only one-word answers are required, and that one word is “Yes” or “No.”

Why insist on this? Because in the world of politics, skill is often displayed by not answering the question.

To accommodate that political reality, none of these questions requires elaboration. Each is the presentation of a documented action regarding the president or his administration, followed by a version of the question: Do you agree with this?

Anyway, let’s get started.

1. According to the Washington Post, Elon Musk has no official role in DOGE. Folks in Congress know that Executive branch officers (such as Cabinet Secretaries) must be Senate-approved, and even lower-level officers must occupy roles defined by statute. Do you agree with putting a non-vetted corporate titan in charge of a massive federal undertaking, given that he has no “official” role and therefore cannot be subjected to oversight by Congress?

2. According to former Labor secretary Robert Reich, “When Trump took office, the National Labor Relations Board had 24 investigations into Musk’s corporations for violating workers’ rights. But…Trump fired three officials at that agency, effectively stalling the board’s ability to rule on cases.” Is that okay with you? 

3. Trump also fired Justice Department prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. Do you agree these non-political public servants should be fired for following the evidence of  now-documented January 6 crimes, as directed by their politically appointed superiors at the Justice Department? 

4. Trump pardoned jailed supporters who violently attacked the Capitol and injured police in their attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory. Some have since been arrested for other crimes. Do you support these blanket pardons, along with Trump’s portrayal of January 6 offenders as innocent “hostages” as justification for the pardons?

5. Oh, and by the way, did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? 

Of course, in a world helmed by authoritarians, lesser authorities have no objective reality or traditional morality to draw upon when questioned. In such regimes, the truth is whatever the current leadership says it is. It’s the same for what is “good” or “bad”. What is true, good or bad changes over time; but such changes are not acknowledged, only implemented. Because what is true today has always been true. 

And tomorrow? Tomorrow’s truth, though different than today’s, will be equally unassailable.

In such systems, the plasticity of “political” truths goes without saying. Because saying something could land you in hot water. Remember that gallows the Trump mob erected on January 6?

So this should be the easiest question for you all, the quiet observers and “no comment” Congressional enablers of Trumpism: 

6. When this president violates the law, is it your preference that we all simply look the other way? 

Just yesterday, Trump posted, in his curious random capitalization style and without context, a quote sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”. 

The quote, which is actually from the largely Soviet-financed 1970 theatrical film Waterloo, begins with  the Napoleon character musing as he dictates a letter: “I did not usurp the crown. I found it, in the gutter, and I picked it up with my sword. And it was the people, Alexis, the people who put it on my head.”

A victorious savior crowned by the people! What law—or lawmaker—can compete with that? 

7. So—regarding that golden-crowned “Long Live the King” Trump portrait the White House tweeted yesterday…you know what? Forget it. How could your answers matter? We are now all bystanders at Trump’s glorious Battle of Austerlitz. Whatever comes of it will belong to him.

Perhaps, in the end and with your continued laissez-faire approach to Congressional oversight, Trump will whip up just as much glory for Americans as Napoleon did for the French. I think I’ll see if Waterloo is available on Netflix this weekend. 

What’s the Opposite of “Woke”?

Letter to the Editor, Lincoln Journal-Star, Feb. 12, 2025.

As a Nebraskan, I’m naturally concerned about wokeness. The nation, and most Nebraskans, elected a president whose entire mission appears to be centered around “anti-wokeness.” If that doesn’t make anti-wokeness important, I don’t know what would. 

The problem is figuring out what “wokeness” means. 

We can compare “woke” with neologisms from the past that were employed as ideological  labels. I remember a few decades ago, conservatives seemed obsessed with the spread of “Islamofascism.” But as with “woke,” the definition of the term appeared pretty random, sort of circling around the idea that to be Islamic and an enemy of the United States is to be Islamofascist. 

Then there are the words that “surround” a term like “woke”, such as when the president pairs the epithet “woke” with companion labels like “communist, globalist, leftist, Marxist,” etc.  By association alone, we can understand that to be “woke” is to NOT be a good MAGA Republican. Maybe that’s enough.

In truth, we all know what words really mean—or don’t mean. To MAGA conservatives, those of us who support DEI initiatives, those who support helping refugees, those who condemn the demonization of all marginalized and powerless Americans—we are “woke”.

So what should a never-Trump Republican call folks who witnessed the chaos and lawlessness of Trump’s first term, and then voted for another one?

I think the term we’re looking for would simply be the opposite of woke. 

Not “anti-woke,” which limits them to what they are not.

Perhaps the word is “asleep”. 

A Shadow Looms Over Omaha’s Leaders 

Unpublished editorial

This Tuesday, Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert and Police Chief Todd Schmaderer held a press conference intended to “quell apprehension amplified by national reports of imminent deportations under the new Trump administration,” according to the Nebraska Examiner.

Asked what would happen if federal officials insisted on help, Schmaderer said he doesn’t have to stray from his defined mission: 

“The federal government can’t come one day and give a directive to the Omaha police chief, to the mayor, to say, ‘This is what you’re going to do.’”

The two were responding, as the Associated Press reports, to a new memo written by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, which instructs the Justice Department’s civil division to work with a newly formed “Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group.” The group will  identify state and local laws and policies that “threaten to impede” the Trump administration’s immigration efforts and potentially challenge them in court, according to the memo.

This action, and this memo, are generally being reported nationally as a tool to go after heavily Democratic cities that “hinder” Justice Department anti-immigration efforts, such as via statue, policies or immigrant-friendly court actions. 

But the leading argument is not the most salient one for Omaha. Later in the 3-page memo, we find this: 

“Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests.” (Emphasis added)

Chief Schmaderer is probably banking on that word “lawful” to hold the status quo and allow him to resist any federal “commands” he finds distasteful (or professionally dangerous). But let’s look closely, here in 2025, at the legal parameters of the authority of the executive branch—charged with enforcing the nation’s laws—as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Consider that one reason Trump is back in office is a series of Trump-friendly rulings by the conservative Court, culminating in Trump v. United States (2024), which grants presidents unqualified immunity from any laws they may break while engaged in acts “within their core constitutional purview.” 

I would argue that Mr. Trump regards his America First crackdown on illegal immigration as a very “core” act with regard to enforcing the law, especially since deporting undocumented immigrants was the main plank of his campaign platform. And, to be clear, those who cross the border without going through channels have broken the law.

But Mr. Trump, as we have seen, breaks the law and then claims political persecution is driving anyone hoping to hold him accountable (those 34 felonies and numerous former federal indictments). Rather than Trump, it is often the DA or prosecutor coming after him whose professional life ends in tatters. So what’s to stop him now, with his immunity ruling in hand, from breaking any law that gets in his way? 

Given the immunity ruling and Trump’s penchant for defining legality under his own terms, it is safe to say that any law designed to constrain this president from executing what he believes to be his “core” functions—to include  punishing people who impede those functions—is no longer a law. It is a “suggestion” at best. And to Trump, any suggestion that his power should be limited is seen as a challenge. 

So what becomes of Omaha? Lincoln? Admirably, you have pledged to tread the legal path and obstain from operating outside your purview, even if so ordered. 

But what of the divergent path the president may believe to be “more” legal—perhaps even “perfect”—given his history and the power of immunity recently bestowed upon him? 

In 2025, we must ask—which of those represents the “legal” choice? It looks like only time will tell.

Trump’s Return: Implications for U.S. Democracy

January 9, 2025

From Exile to Victory

Today is a National Day of Mourning. As I write this, the body of Jimmy Carter lies in state at the Capitol, the hallowed center of America’s democracy that was violently attacked by Donald Trump’s supporters four years ago last Monday. 

He told them to go to that same Capitol and “fight like hell” as Congress attempted to certify the results of a free and fair election, so they did. It was a counterpart for today; it was a national day of shame. The world looked upon the United States as a democracy losing itself to violent hooliganism.

But in eleven days, the same Donald Trump who refused to recognize the vote of the people, the one who tried to engineer a reversal of Democratic President Joe Biden’s win by whatever means necessary, who has been convicted of 34 felonies, who assaults women, who “allegedly” stashed a trove of secret government documents in his bathroom (I guess we’ll never know), who calls America a “garbage can” fighting “forever wars” while praising Putin’s blood-soaked Russia—this man will be sworn in as president once again. 

He will be sworn in by a member of the Supreme Court, a conservative majority of which has  granted him constitutionally questionable immunity from prosecution for his many alleged crimes. As I write this, that same Court has just narrowly decided not to try to erase his 34 state felony convictions for crimes committed before he was in office. 

This is not to mention the literally thousands of lawsuits Trump has been hit with, the payouts to hoodwinked “students” of the phony Trump University, his civil trial for sexual assault of Ms. E. Jean Carroll (for which he was found liable), or the many other women who have come forward to accuse him of assault. 

Remember the Donald Trump who admitted barging into the dressing rooms of his Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants to “inspect” the half-dressed contestants? Because he could? The Trump whom we heard on tape claiming that he could not help himself, could not resist grabbing and kissing beautiful women? It’s the same Trump now. 

As Gallup notes, the Supreme Court protecting Trump from accountablity presides over a court system that it appears Americans no longer trust. In 2020, 59% of those polled said they have confidence in the courts. A few weeks ago, Gallup released a poll showing that in the last five years, the number has dropped to 35%. According to Gallup, this is the kind of rapid decline in confidence seen during recent upheavals in countries like Myanmar, Venezuela, and Syria.

Yet it is by design. A democraticaly elected president cannot become a “dictator on day one,” as Trump has publicly promised, without a little help from his friends. As Putin and his ilk have done in Russia, Hungary, Syria, Venezuela, and other former democracies, Trump must undermine the authority of the courts in the eyes of the public before he can bend them to his will. 

Ironically, in the case of the Supreme Court, the unaddressed ethical lapses and outrageous behaviors of conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as exhaustively reported by Pro Publica, have aided this campaign against the courts’ general credibility. Chief Justice Roberts’ annoyed dismissals of any hint of wrongdoing, as if to suggest that wrongdoing by members of a powerful court with no one to answer to but itself is impossible, have also likely moved the needle. 

And of course, Trump relentlessly attacks every judge, prosecutor, or DA who dares to come after him, casting them as the Spanish Inquisition and himself as a modern Jesus of Nazareth. But as with those juries that have found him to be less than innocent, to me the publicly available evidence alone makes him look more like a criminal being prosecuted by the law than a politician being persecuted by his enemies. There’s just no evidence of the latter, unless you look all the way back to the 2019 Ukraine debacle, Trump’s mob-like pressure campaign to force the Ukranian government to smear the reputation of candidate Joe Biden (the subject of Trump’s first impeachment.)

Speaking of protecting the public from wrongdoers, that was also Aileen Cannon’s job in presiding over Trump’s trial for allegedly stealing top secret government documents. We all saw what happened with Trump’s appointee in charge—endless delays and needless hearings on every frivolous motion, followed by prompt pre-election dismissal of the case based on the already-defeated notion that the special prosecutor was “illegally appointed.” 

That was the end, as they say, of that. But it should have been only the beginning. Special Counsel Jack Smith was ready to appeal. 

Then Trump won the election. 

From Victory to Retribution

Yes, once again, Trump won. Now, like a character in a novel rescued from unjust banishment and restored to the throne, Trump’s ignominious past begins to fall away in favor of an imagined “return of the king” narrative favored by the administration and its friends in high (and low) places.

Indeed, the major media, much of which is now owned by Trump’s fellow billionaires, seem to be suffering a major case of amnesia regarding the historic coup attempt. Three days ago was the fourth anniversary of the January 6 attack. In perusing the media that morning, one of the two articles I saw on the topic was from never-Trump conservative David Frum, writing in The Atlantic on the topic of—you guessed it—how the incoming administration and its apologists are trying to “erase” the legacy of January 6. 

It must be erased, because this king has returned for “retribution” and “justice,” as promised when he announced his candidacy in early 2023. Before even  taking office, he has already threatened our neighbors both north and south, throwing in Panama and Denmark for good measure. He has threatened GOP elected officials like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney with “military tribunals”, whatever that is supposed to look like. 

You may recall that four-star General Mark Milley, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, spoke on the phone with his Chinese counterpart during the mayhem of January 6, 2021. As the world press was live-reporting on a possible coup by Trump’s supporters, who were marching through the halls of the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” and defecating on elected officials’ desks, and while Trump himself did nothing but watch the sordid show unfold on television, Milley took responsibility for assuring the Chinese government that the United States nuclear arsenal was under control and that there was no threat of an unprovoked nuclear strike. 

The Chinese were completely blind regarding what may have been happening in terms of the security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and chain of command. Further, U.S. intelligence indicated that weeks earlier, the Chinese had acquired intelligence of their own suggesting a possible first strike by the U.S. So Milley’s call may have been instrumental in averting an accidental nuclear exchange. 

But Trump, after a couple of years spent rehabilitating himself among his supporters, was retroactively livid. He said publicly in September 2023 that Milley’s actions were treasonous and, in past times, would have merited court-martial and execution. In other words, he was insinuating that his former Joint Chiefs Chariman, a decorated war hero and a symbol of the modern military, could be put to death for calming the global situation while Trump sulked in front of his TV, watching the insurrection he co-authored. 

What’s more, at the time, Milley’s call had been discussed and authorized by the then-Secretary of State and acting Secretary of Defense. While it may be argued Milley exceeded his statutory authority in making the call, it may also be argued—and more convincingly—that bridging the gaping hole in the chain of command left by the absent president was the more immediate concern.

Professor Tom Nichols of the U.S. Naval War College said as much, writing in The Atlantic at the time that “[t]he Constitution of the United States has no provision for the control of planet-destroying weapons while the President is losing his mind and trying to overthrow the government itself.”

Since that time, General Milley has become a standard-issue MAGA pariah, to the point that he has been forced to barricade his home and hire private security for his family. It’s a familiar story now. By taking a stand for the Constitution and the public good, Milley has become  the symbolic anti-MAGA warrior who must be diminished.

Let’s remember what Trump confidant (and fellow convict) Steve Bannon has been saying for years: “Our goal is the deconstruction of the administrative state.” 

Milley has since said publicly that Trump is “the most dangerous person ever” and “a fascist to the core.” With Trump about to gain unchecked power, I am very concerned for the general’s future, and by extension the future of all who value the checks and balances of the Constitution, the integrity of the courts, and the rule of law. 

But we who value such things are no longer the majority. Instead, the country will inherit the kind of future that a small plurality of Americans and a decisive majority of Nebraskans asked for with their votes last November. It’s a future they have gifted to Trump the Immune, but whatever fruits it bears will fall to all of us. 

They say the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Let us see how this future unfolds.