Latest news with #ParisClimateAccord
NDTV
4 days ago
- Business
- NDTV
Two Narcissists Walk Into a Democracy: On The Trump-Musk Saga
In a clash so inevitable it feels like the final season of a prestige political satire, Elon Musk and Donald Trump - two of the most powerful men with arguably the thinnest skins on Earth - are now at war. Not over policy, ethics, or even money (at least not directly), but over the most potent fuel of the 21st century: Ego. What began as a carefully transactional relationship between the billionaire technocrat and the 'reality TV president' has morphed into a Shakespearean fallout, played out on social media and, inevitably, the stock market. This feud is more than a spectacle - it is a glitch in the simulation, exposing how democracy is now shaped less by institutions and more by the whims of exceptionally online, exceptionally powerful men. The Build-Up: Billionaire Bromance The seeds of this high-voltage drama were planted during Trump's first term, when Musk - then still a Silicon Valley favourite - joined the US President's advisory councils. Their relationship was an unlikely duet: One man selling flamethrowers and Mars dreams, the other selling nationalism and golf club memberships. Yet they found common ground in deregulation, disdain for media and an appetite for attention. Though Musk walked out after Trump pulled the US from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017, there was never a clean break. By 2020, Trump praised Musk as 'one of our great geniuses', while Musk returned the favour by cozying up to conservative talking points and positioning himself as a champion of 'free speech' after his takeover of Twitter, now called X. The Feud Begins: One Big Ugly Bill Enter Trump's latest legislative gambit: the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' a $2.5 trillion mashup of tax cuts, immigration crackdowns, and budget slashes to healthcare and environmental programmes. Musk, having presumably read the fine print - or at least the parts affecting him - declared the bill a 'disgusting abomination'. In particular, he balked at the axing of electric vehicle subsidies, a critical driver of Tesla's appeal. Trump, rarely one to take criticism quietly, fired back. He accused Musk of hypocrisy, whining about handouts while living off government contracts, and warned of pulling federal funding from Musk's businesses, including lucrative SpaceX deals with NASA. So here we are - a populist ex-president threatening to crush a private space programme because the CEO called his bill ugly. American governance, ladies and gentlemen. Power By Proxy: The Digital Battleground It didn't take long for the digital proxies to join the fray. Musk, in his characteristically chaotic style, called for Trump to be impeached. At one point, he endorsed a tweet suggesting Vice President JD Vance should replace Trump. He even lobbed the Epstein grenade, accusing the Trump administration of withholding damning files. Trump, on his part, fired salvos from Truth Social, painting Musk as a spoiled billionaire who turned on America when he didn't get his tax breaks. Meanwhile, Tesla stock plunged - at one point shedding over $150 billion in market value. Investors who once praised Musk's audacity are now wondering if he's steering the ship with a joystick made of memes. The feud is no longer just political theatre. It's economic reality. The Psychology Of Power (And Platforms) Let's pause and examine the architecture of this mess. Trump and Musk are not mere individuals. They are brands, platforms, and echo chambers in human form. Each commands a devoted following, not because of what they build (a country, a car, a spaceship), but because of what they represent: disruption, defiance, dominance. Both men operate under the gravitational pull of narcissism, a trait frequently observed in high-functioning, high-profile personalities. Trump's public persona is built on dominance, loyalty, and retribution. Musk's identity, meanwhile, is rooted in genius worship and contrarianism. They thrive on attention, and when they don't get it, they manufacture it. The difference lies in their methods. Trump weaponises grievance. Musk weaponises intellect - or at least the perception of it. Trump's power comes from populism and politics; Musk's from code, contracts and stock markets. But the endgame is the same: control the narrative. When two narrative-controlling narcissists collide, democracy doesn't just get squeezed - it becomes secondary. Policy becomes performance. Governance becomes spectacle. This isn't just another high-profile clash of egos. It's a cautionary tale about how democracy is morphing into a personality contest played out on digital colosseum. The Trump-Musk feud is both deeply personal and frighteningly structural. It shows how fragile modern power really is when concentrated in the hands of a few men who consider humility a software bug. In ancient Rome, emperors clashed with senators over war and law. In 2025 America, the emperor and the rocket man are feuding over subsidies and social media likes. Perhaps the real question isn't who wins this fight, but what's left of governance when they're done.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 days ago
- Automotive
- First Post
From ally to adversary: A timeline shows how Elon Musk turned against Donald Trump
Elon Musk and Donald Trump's relationship has shifted from cool indifference to mutual admiration, and now, public hostility. A major donor and Trump's once close White House adviser, Musk has turned on the US president — opposing his top legislation and making explosive allegations read more Elon Musk greets US President Donald Trump as they attend the NCAA men's wrestling championships in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, March 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters The relationship or rather partnership between United States President Donald Trump and Elon Musk was one for the ages. The most powerful man in the world working in cahoots with the richest man on the planet. The bond between the two has been on full display for the public for a long time as it witnessed an initial indifference and mutual admiration to deep political partnership and, now most recently, a public and personal feud. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Here's a timeline that shows how the ties between the US president and the tech magnate have evolved — and now unravelled. Back in 2016 In the lead-up to the 2016 US presidential election, Elon Musk made his feelings about Donald Trump clear. Speaking to CNBC, Musk said, 'I feel a bit stronger that he is not the right guy. He doesn't seem to have the sort of character that reflects well on the United States.' He remarked, 'I don't think this is the finest moment in our democracy.' Musk supported Hillary Clinton at the time, aligning himself with her economic and environmental policies. However, despite this early scepticism, Musk agreed to serve on Trump's advisory boards after the 2016 election, including the 'manufacturing jobs council.' His tenure on these panels was brief. By June 2017, Musk had stepped down in protest over Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. He posted on social media: 'Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.' Nevertheless, Musk maintained beneficial ties with the federal government during Trump's first term. His company SpaceX continued to secure significant contracts with Nasa and other US agencies. Trump himself complimented Musk during a 2020 SpaceX launch, stating, 'I speak to him all the time. Great guy. He's one of our great brains. We like great brains. And Elon has done a fantastic job.' Musk goes Republican In May 2022, Musk distanced himself from the Democratic Party. In a public statement, he declared that 'they have become the party of division & hate' and confirmed that he had voted for Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020, but no longer supported Democrats. Despite his apparent shift toward the Republican camp, Musk clashed with Trump just two months later. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD During a multi-day public dispute in July 2022, Trump insulted Musk at a rally, calling him a 'b—s— artist' and questioning the value of his companies without federal support. Musk responded on Twitter: 'Trump should hang up his hat & sail into the sunset.' Shortly after, Musk acquired Twitter (now known as X) and reinstated Trump's account, which had been suspended following the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. The reinstatement occurred four days after Trump announced his third presidential campaign. Despite this gesture, Musk initially supported Florida Governor Ron DeSantis during the 2024 Republican primaries, appearing with him in a glitch-prone Twitter livestream in May 2023 to launch DeSantis' campaign. Musk finally endorses Trump 2.0 The dynamic changed drastically on July 13, 2024, when Trump survived an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. In a high-profile post, Musk wrote, 'I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery,' sharing a video of the wounded candidate raising a fist amid Secret Service protection. From then on, Musk became a key Trump backer. He joined the campaign trail and reportedly contributed over $270 million through two super PACs, including one called America PAC. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He spent the election night of November 5, 2024, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate and stayed for several days, helping with staffing decisions and being present during calls with global leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. On November 12, 2024, Trump announced Musk — alongside former GOP candidate Vivek Ramaswamy — as the head of a newly formed 'Department of Government Efficiency' (Doge). Trump's statement read, 'Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.' Ramaswamy later exited to pursue a gubernatorial campaign in Ohio, leaving Musk to spearhead Doge. Musk inside Trump's White House Trump and Musk's public alignment grew deeper. They appeared together at a SpaceX launch in Texas. On January 20, 2025, Musk and other tech CEOs were front-row guests at Trump's inauguration. Musk quickly became an influential figure in the administration, attending Cabinet meetings and travelling aboard Air Force One with his young son. Doge, under Musk's leadership, carried out aggressive cuts to federal agencies and workforce. At a February 2025 Cabinet meeting, Trump jested, 'Is anybody unhappy with Elon? If you are, we'll throw him out of here,' drawing laughter and applause from his Cabinet. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Musk, wearing a 'Make America Great Again' hat, was the first to speak — despite not being an official Cabinet member. On March 6, Trump clarified at another meeting that Cabinet secretaries retained control of their departments, not Musk. Musk later described the meeting on X as 'very productive.' In March, Trump showcased Tesla vehicles on the White House lawn. Speaking to reporters, he said, 'I just want people to know that you can't be penalised for being a patriot… People should be going wild, and they love the product.' Trump even claimed to have purchased one himself. By late May, Musk had completed his 130-day appointment as a special government employee. On May 29, he posted, 'As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending.' He added that Doge would 'only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD During a farewell appearance from the Oval Office, Musk said the department would 'only grow stronger over time,' claiming to have saved $175 billion through asset sales, cancelled contracts, and workforce reductions — far below his $1 trillion goal. Sporting a bruise from a playful incident with his son, he said, 'I look forward to continuing to be a friend and adviser to the president.' Musk-Trump bond explodes Barely a week after his exit from the administration, Musk began publicly attacking Trump's key legislative initiative — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. On June 3, 2025, he denounced it on X: 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.' He accused it of massively increasing the deficit and undermining DOGE's work. He followed up on June 4 with calls for his followers to pressure lawmakers to 'KILL THE BILL.' On June 5, the fallout exploded. Musk slammed Trump for 'ingratitude' and backed an X post calling for Trump's impeachment. He even wrote, '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In turn, Trump declared on social media: 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump hinted at pulling Musk's government contracts, calling it 'the easiest way to save money.' Musk, meanwhile, claimed that Trump couldn't have won without him, threatened to suspend a vital NASA-linked SpaceX programme (before walking it back), and warned Republicans, 'Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt summarised the split as an 'unfortunate episode from Elon.' With inputs from agencies
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - American energy is still being held hostage by Paris
The 2016 Paris Climate Accord is more than a bad deal — it is a globalist straitjacket that President Trump has rightly called a 'rip-off.' But even though Trump has pulled America out of it (twice), Paris still haunts our national security, our economy and the president's 'energy dominance' agenda. Despite Trump's unwavering commitment to withdrawing from this 'unfair, one-sided' pact and his condemnation of Biden's rejoining as a 'disaster,' powerful interests — big oil, big tech, manufacturers and industrial electricity users — are perpetuating the accord's influence. In Texas, these forces are fighting long-overdue grid reliability reforms that would force unreliable wind and solar generators to pay for the chaos they cause, costs that are dumped onto families and small businesses. This would effectively charge ratepayers to subsidize corporate virtue-signaling tied to climate commitments, leaving Texans to foot the bill for an agenda that undermines energy reliability. In 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued a clear directive to the Public Utility Commission to 'allocate reliability costs to generation resources that cannot guarantee their own availability, such as wind or solar power.' This commonsense reform would force renewable energy providers to internalize their true costs. Yet the commission has so far ignored this directive, leaving Texas families and small businesses to bear what amounts to an electricity tax. In 2023, Texas ratepayers were saddled with a staggering $2.3 billion tab to cover the costs of wind and solar power's unreliability. Trump has been crystal clear about the Paris Accord's harm, stating in the first-term executive order, 'This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.' His administration's withdrawal from the accord was a bold step toward energy dominance. Yet corporate America, bolstered by misguided policies, continues to undermine his vision. Former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act pours billions in subsidies and tax breaks into inefficient solar, wind and battery technologies, inflating electricity costs and distorting markets. Congress's latest proposal, the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, delays meaningful cuts to these subsidies. This protracted timeline will spark a frenzy of green tech deployments, further driving up electricity costs for Americans already grappling with what can only be described as an energy emergency. This is not the path to energy dominance; it is a capitulation to the 'climate cartel.' The costs of this agenda are not just financial — they are existential. Texas's energy grid, ERCOT, once a model of resilience, is increasingly strained due to the variability of wind and solar, which cannot deliver power when it is needed most. The 2021 winter storm in Texas and recent blackouts in Europe exposed the fragility of over-reliance on renewables, yet the same corporate interests that champion Paris are doubling down on these flawed technologies. The inconsistency is glaring. Big tech giants and industrial users demand grid reliability to power their production, data centers and factories, yet they fiercely oppose market reforms that would reward reliability and hold renewable energy accountable for its variability. Through power purchase agreements, these companies buy 'carbon-free' electricity to signal their Paris compliance, but buried in those deals are provisions that let renewable providers pass higher grid costs back to the buyer if and only if new rules or legislation force them to pay for their own unreliability. That is why lobbyists from Big Tech, Big Oil and 'woke' utilities have all descended on Austin to oppose reforms. They don't want their bill to come due. To break free from the Paris Climate scam and reclaim American energy independence, Texas and the federal government must act decisively. Texas has already led by example — in 2021, the state banned financial institutions that boycott fossil fuels from doing business with the state, striking a blow against the Environmental, Social and Governance or ESG movement, which I have called 'Wall Street's green coercion.' But the fight must go further. The Public Utility Commission of Texas should swiftly implement Gov. Abbott's directive to allocate reliability costs to renewable generators, ending the market distortions being fueled by corporate virtue signaling. Companies with Net Zero or Paris Accord commitments — just like those boycotting fossil fuels — should be barred from receiving public contracts, subsidies and tax breaks. These 'woke' corporations undermine Trump's America First energy agenda, and Congress is enabling them by stalling the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act's green handouts. We need to reject the timid phasedown in the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act and instead dismantle the Inflation Reduction Act entirely. As I testified before the House Oversight Committee, this agenda diverts resources from reliable, affordable energy in service of globalist elites, threatening both our economic liberty and energy security. The grip that the Paris Accords hold on our energy system is a betrayal of Texas values and American priorities. We deserve an energy future that puts affordability and reliability first, not one manipulated by liberal executives and unelected climate bureaucrats. Trump started the fight. Paris or America? Pick one. Jason Isaac is the founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
American energy is still being held hostage by Paris
The 2016 Paris Climate Accord is more than a bad deal — it is a globalist straitjacket that President Trump has rightly called a 'rip-off.' But even though Trump has pulled America out of it (twice), Paris still haunts our national security, our economy and the president's 'energy dominance' agenda. Despite Trump's unwavering commitment to withdrawing from this 'unfair, one-sided' pact and his condemnation of Biden's rejoining as a 'disaster,' powerful interests — big oil, big tech, manufacturers and industrial electricity users — are perpetuating the accord's influence. In Texas, these forces are fighting long-overdue grid reliability reforms that would force unreliable wind and solar generators to pay for the chaos they cause, costs that are dumped onto families and small businesses. This would effectively charge ratepayers to subsidize corporate virtue-signaling tied to climate commitments, leaving Texans to foot the bill for an agenda that undermines energy reliability. In 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued a clear directive to the Public Utility Commission to 'allocate reliability costs to generation resources that cannot guarantee their own availability, such as wind or solar power.' This commonsense reform would force renewable energy providers to internalize their true costs. Yet the commission has so far ignored this directive, leaving Texas families and small businesses to bear what amounts to an electricity tax. In 2023, Texas ratepayers were saddled with a staggering $2.3 billion tab to cover the costs of wind and solar power's unreliability. Trump has been crystal clear about the Paris Accord's harm, stating in the first-term executive order, 'This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.' His administration's withdrawal from the accord was a bold step toward energy dominance. Yet corporate America, bolstered by misguided policies, continues to undermine his vision. Former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act pours billions in subsidies and tax breaks into inefficient solar, wind and battery technologies, inflating electricity costs and distorting markets. Congress's latest proposal, the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, delays meaningful cuts to these subsidies. This protracted timeline will spark a frenzy of green tech deployments, further driving up electricity costs for Americans already grappling with what can only be described as an energy emergency. This is not the path to energy dominance; it is a capitulation to the 'climate cartel.' The costs of this agenda are not just financial — they are existential. Texas's energy grid, ERCOT, once a model of resilience, is increasingly strained due to the variability of wind and solar, which cannot deliver power when it is needed most. The 2021 winter storm in Texas and recent blackouts in Europe exposed the fragility of over-reliance on renewables, yet the same corporate interests that champion Paris are doubling down on these flawed technologies. The inconsistency is glaring. Big tech giants and industrial users demand grid reliability to power their production, data centers and factories, yet they fiercely oppose market reforms that would reward reliability and hold renewable energy accountable for its variability. Through power purchase agreements, these companies buy 'carbon-free' electricity to signal their Paris compliance, but buried in those deals are provisions that let renewable providers pass higher grid costs back to the buyer if and only if new rules or legislation force them to pay for their own unreliability. That is why lobbyists from Big Tech, Big Oil and 'woke' utilities have all descended on Austin to oppose reforms. They don't want their bill to come due. To break free from the Paris Climate scam and reclaim American energy independence, Texas and the federal government must act decisively. Texas has already led by example — in 2021, the state banned financial institutions that boycott fossil fuels from doing business with the state, striking a blow against the Environmental, Social and Governance or ESG movement, which I have called 'Wall Street's green coercion.' But the fight must go further. The Public Utility Commission of Texas should swiftly implement Gov. Abbott's directive to allocate reliability costs to renewable generators, ending the market distortions being fueled by corporate virtue signaling. Companies with Net Zero or Paris Accord commitments — just like those boycotting fossil fuels — should be barred from receiving public contracts, subsidies and tax breaks. These 'woke' corporations undermine Trump's America First energy agenda, and Congress is enabling them by stalling the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act's green handouts. We need to reject the timid phasedown in the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act and instead dismantle the Inflation Reduction Act entirely. As I testified before the House Oversight Committee, this agenda diverts resources from reliable, affordable energy in service of globalist elites, threatening both our economic liberty and energy security. The grip that the Paris Accords hold on our energy system is a betrayal of Texas values and American priorities. We deserve an energy future that puts affordability and reliability first, not one manipulated by liberal executives and unelected climate bureaucrats. Trump started the fight. Paris or America? Pick one. Jason Isaac is the founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.
Otago Daily Times
27-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Reductions market-driven: SFF
Silver Fern Farms says its focus on emissions reduction is driven by what its customers and markets want. "It's not about the Paris Climate Accord or domestic methane targets. It's wholeheartedly driven by the markets you need to be in," chief executive Dan Boulton told shareholders attending yesterday's annual meeting of Silver Fern Farms Co-operative in Dunedin. Many high-value customers were addressing their own emissions reduction targets while many farmers were also implementing changes on farm to improve efficiencies and reduce emissions. Some might call it woke, but the company's view was that given New Zealand farmers' track record of environmental progress and efficiencies, it would be "irresponsible to walk away from it", he said. Customers were willing to invest in new ways of achieving targets and they were not interested in domestic debate around historic land use change in New Zealand, or that New Zealand contributed only a small percentage of global emissions. "They are only interested in what is in their supply chain," he said. Silver Fern Farms invested $9.1 million in AgriZeroNZ over the last two years, and held a shareholding of about 7.59%. That investment represented about 0.1% of total revenue. Customers in markets who made public commitments represented about 20% of its revenue and that was growing, he said. The investment in AgriZeroNZ was about options to meet that market driver without compromising key market advantages. There were a range of tools AgriZeroNZ was investing in which would go through rigorous testing. Some farmers might not be open to that "direction of travel" and it would not be forced on them. Many would be happy to accept it. He made no apologies about creating options for farmers to make sure they stayed aligned with what the markets wanted, he said. It was about finding solutions and options to address customers needs — to ensure the company maintained market access and its highest-value customers — and make it cost effective and easy to implement on-farm. Earlier this year, Silver Fern Farms announced a $21.8m net loss after tax for the year ended December 31, a $2.6m improvement on last year's result. Revenue was down $144m to $2.6 billion, ebitda was up $16.3m to $32.7m and capital expenditure was more than halved, down to $52.5m. Silver Fern Farms Co-operative, which jointly owns Silver Fern Farms Ltd with Bright Meat Group, recorded a net loss after tax of $10.9m, up from last year's $10.7m loss. Mr Boulton reiterated it was disappointing to post a loss but, without greater cost control and commercial discipline, the result would have been significantly more unfavourable. Looking at the year ahead, livestock volumes were materially lower than expected and the industry had adjusted by removing capacity earlier than was typical. Lamb kill was back 8%, predominantly in the South Island, and national beef kill was back 6% for the season to date. It would be the second consecutive challenging winter for processors, which created downstream challenges, and action and leadership was needed across the industry to address structural issues. Improved pricing was expected to stay around for the foreseeable future and that pricing had been rebuilding confidence in farming, as farmers looked to expand and buy more land. "Coming into this year, we are a fitter, more resilient Silver Fern Farms," he said. Protein demand would outstrip supply for the year ahead and growing concern around food security provided significant opportunities for New Zealand to leverage. "There's a lot to be excited about if you're a producer here in New Zealand," he said. Last year, Silver Fern Farms Co-operative bought a 12.5% stake in Woolworks for $18.486m. Silver Fern Farms Co-operative chairwoman Anna Nelson yesterday said better wool returns were essential for the overall viability of sheep farming. Asked about any potential conflict of interest with outgoing Silver Fern Farms director Rob Hewett being chairman of Woolworks, she said an extensive due diligence process was followed "with Rob firmly out of the room".
