President Trump has set back solar and wind while boosting fossil fuel, letting his fiercest critics claim the banner of energy affordability https://t.co/Y58CEeH2fx ...

Frankenstein. [music] You've heard of him, right. Tall, dark, maybe green, stitched together from parts of the unliving.But what if I told you that's not Frankenstein. Frankenstein looks more like this. the scientist who created the creature, but not the creature himself.This is Dr. . Bealite, not Frankenstein. Albeit, he did create a monster.One you know all too well. Even when you're not thinking about it, it's still on your mind. It's been proven.His monster and yours is plastic. Plastic is everywhere. I ...

Core Points - The article discusses the Democratic Party's struggles with inflation messaging, highlighting how their own charts inadvertently showcase failures during the Biden administration, particularly regarding rising electricity and utility prices [1][4][5] - It emphasizes that a significant portion of price increases, specifically 88%, occurred under Biden's presidency, contrasting it with the relatively low inflation of about 2% during Trump's first term [5][10] - The article also touches on the issue of "debanking," suggesting that federal regulators under Biden pressured banks to limit services to certain industries, which has been a point of contention [12][14][18] Group 1: Inflation and Utility Prices - The article points out that Democratic leaders, including Senator Chris Murphy and Chuck Schumer, have misinterpreted charts that reflect rising utility prices, attributing them incorrectly to Trump rather than acknowledging Biden's administration [1][2][4] - It notes that states governed by Democrats, such as New York and California, have the highest electricity prices, often two to three times higher than those in Republican states [7][8] - The article argues that the facts regarding inflation and utility prices are more favorable to Republicans, as they highlight the significant increases under Biden's administration [4][5][10] Group 2: Debanking and Regulatory Pressure - The article discusses a study indicating that major banks engaged in debanking practices, which were allegedly influenced by federal regulators under the Biden administration [12][14] - It suggests that the regulators pressured banks to limit services to certain industries, including firearms and fossil fuels, which the Biden administration has been critical of [14][18] - The article concludes that the issue of debanking may be less relevant moving forward, as it implies a shift in regulatory approach under a potential Trump administration [18][19]

Core Insights - The energy industry is facing a challenging outlook, with forecasts indicating a supply glut that will persist into 2026, leading to a projected decline in crude oil prices by approximately 20% by the end of next year [2][6] Industry Performance - The energy sector has shown a modest year-to-date gain of 7.21%, ranking fifth-worst among the S&P 500's 11 sectors, following a 5.7% gain in 2024 and a 1.3% loss in 2023 [4] - The cyclical nature of the energy sector has resulted in it finishing second-to-last or last among all sectors seven times in the past 11 years [4] Price Forecasts - The EIA's short-term outlook suggests that oil prices will continue to decline due to a sustained global supply surplus, with Brent crude expected to reach $55 per barrel by the end of 2026, representing a nearly 54% decline from its June 2022 high of $118.49 [6][7] - West Texas Intermediate has experienced a nearly 18% loss in 2025, while Brent crude has fallen more than 16% [5][6] ETF Performance - The State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLE), which is heavily weighted in major oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, is anticipated to continue underperforming due to the bearish outlook on oil prices [7] - Institutional sentiment towards the ETF is weak, characterized by high short interest and a balance of buyers and sellers over the past year [7]

Regulatory & Policy Changes - The Trump administration, through the EPA, is moving to revoke the endangerment finding, which forms the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions [1][2][3] - This action aims to undo the scientific and legal basis for existing and future regulations on greenhouse gas emissions [5][6] - Environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), plan legal challenges if their concerns are not addressed [7] Environmental & Health Impacts - Repealing the endangerment finding endangers Americans' health due to increased pollution and adverse climatic events [9][10] - Scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health through pollution and climate change impacts [10] - The revocation could exacerbate issues like wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and respiratory problems such as asthma [7][9][10] Economic & Geopolitical Implications - The move could harm the clean energy industry, potentially benefiting the fossil fuel industry [14][15] - The policy shift may give China an advantage in clean energy technologies [19] - Subsidies for the oil and gas industry are seen as detrimental to the economy and public health [17][18] Political Motivations - The decision is perceived as fulfilling a promise made to oil companies in exchange for campaign contributions [13][15] - Critics argue the administration is prioritizing the interests of the fossil fuel industry over public health and environmental protection [15][16]