The U.S. government has agreed to pay nearly $1 billion to the French energy company TotalEnergies to cancel major offshore wind projects planned on the East Coast. The deal was announced by the Department of the Interior and represents a major shift in federal energy policy.
TotalEnergies will give up its lease holdings and invest in fossil fuel development instead. Meanwhile, the U.S. will reimburse the company for lease fees it has already paid.
This move comes as offshore wind was expected to become a key part of America’s renewable energy future. Now, it raises new questions about the future of offshore wind, the role of the federal government, and broader energy and climate strategies.
The Deal: What Happened and What It Means
Officials from the Department of the Interior and TotalEnergies announced that the company will abandon two planned offshore wind projects. These leases were located off the coasts of New York and North Carolina.
TotalEnergies will get back up to $928 million. This amount covers the money it spent on lease rights.
In return, the energy giant plans to redirect that capital toward fossil fuel development. This includes investing in liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure in Texas. It also covers expanded oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. shale regions.
TotalEnergies Chair and CEO Patrick Pouyanné said:
“TotalEnergies is pleased to sign these settlement agreements with the DOI and to support the Administration’s Energy Policy. Considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest, we have decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States, in exchange for the reimbursement of the lease fees.”
The government framed the deal as a way to reduce federal exposure to expensive and “unreliable” offshore wind projects. The Interior Department described the agreement as an efficient way to shift resources toward energy sources they view as more cost‑effective.
US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum noted:
“We welcome TotalEnergies’ commitment to developing projects that produce dependable, affordable power to lower Americans’ monthly bills while providing secure US baseload power today—and in the future.”
On Hold: Offshore Wind’s Place in U.S. Energy Plans
Offshore wind power has been part of U.S. climate and energy planning for years. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated that the United States has a technical potential of:
- 1,476 GW of fixed‑bottom offshore wind resources
- 2,773 GW of floating offshore wind resources
These resources could be developed off the coasts of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico.
Despite this potential, the industry is still in its early stages. As of early 2025, the U.S. had just 174 megawatts (MW) of installed offshore wind capacity.

Several major projects were in development and construction before the recent policy shift. These included:
- Vineyard Wind 1, near Massachusetts
- Empire Wind 1, near New York
- Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW)
- Revolution Wind
- Sunrise Wind
These projects were expected to add several gigawatts of clean energy to U.S. grids in the coming years. The federal government considered this one way to help meet broader climate goals. This was part of U.S. commitments under the Inflation Reduction Act and other climate legislation.
Now, the cancellation of TotalEnergies’ projects marks a notable change in that trajectory.
Costs, Risks, and Market Headwinds
Offshore wind is capital‑intensive and technically complex. The industry has faced cost pressures in recent years. Offshore wind development in the U.S. has high costs. Often, these expenses are several times greater than those for onshore wind installations.

In a 2025 study, fixed-bottom projects cost about $72 to $140 per MWh, while floating wind often exceeds $150 per MWh. Capital costs range from $3,000 to $6,000 per kW, with early floating projects higher. Over time, costs may fall to $50 to $100 per MWh by 2050.
In addition to costs, developers have faced supply chain issues, regulatory delays, and scaling challenges. These factors have slowed project timelines and increased financial risk.
However, offshore wind has continued to be a key part of long‑term clean energy forecasts. A 2023 U.S. Department of Energy outlook estimates up to 30 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030. By 2050, this could reach 110 GW if policies support growth.

These capacity levels would help support decarbonization efforts in the power sector and contribute to electricity market diversification. Offshore wind resources are generally strongest and most consistent offshore, offering high capacity factors compared to some onshore renewables. But now that wind projects are cancelled, these clean energy goals are under strain.
Is This a Fossil Fuel Pivot?
Offshore wind is just one piece of a larger clean energy landscape. The U.S. has significantly expanded onshore wind and solar capacity in recent years, driven by federal tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Offshore wind infrastructure includes large turbine components, subsea cabling, and port facilities. These elements have economic multipliers that can support regional supply chains and workforce development.
At the same time, fossil fuels remain a significant part of the U.S. energy mix. The Trump administration’s deal with TotalEnergies reflects federal policy that prioritizes traditional energy sources, such as natural gas and oil, alongside efforts to support domestic energy security.

U.S. fossil fuel production remains high. In 2025, the U.S. was the world’s largest producer of crude oil and natural gas liquids combined. The country’s energy exports, including LNG, also rose sharply in recent years as global markets shifted.
Natural gas accounts for a large share of U.S. electricity generation, usually around 40% of net generation, providing a flexible baseload power source for grids.

Global Offshore Wind Snapshot
Offshore wind development continues globally, particularly in Europe and Asia. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and Taiwan have deployed substantial offshore wind capacity.
Europe, for example, exceeded 30 GW of installed offshore wind capacity by the end of 2025, with continual growth projected. The global pipeline includes tens of gigawatts under development, driven by policy support and falling technology costs.
Cost reductions in turbine technology, floating wind platforms, and installation methods are expected to continue. Global forecasts project offshore wind capacity reaching 234 GW by 2030 and 2,000 GW by 2050 under the 1.5°C scenario.

These figures indicate that offshore wind could play a major role in the energy transition worldwide — even as policies vary by region.
America’s Clean Energy Goals in Flux
The TotalEnergies deal marks a clear shift in federal energy policy. It reflects a calculated decision by the current administration to redirect capital and incentives away from offshore wind.
This decision could affect investor confidence, supply chains, and future project pipelines. Offshore wind developers have warned that a lack of federal support and policy uncertainty may hinder industry growth.
Elizabeth Klein, former director of the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under the Biden administration, remarked in a CNN interview that the move:
“…will actually cause a further energy deficit in our country and increase the cost of energy certainly along the East Coast… For the current administration to be cutting that off makes no sense at all.”
For states with clean energy goals, reliance on offshore wind as part of a diversified renewable portfolio may now require adjustments.
The broader climate context remains focused on reducing emissions from the power sector. Renewable energy deployment, grid modernization, and clean energy innovation continue to be key strategies for long-term decarbonization.
As the energy landscape evolves, market participants and policymakers are watching closely. What unfolds next will shape not only the offshore wind sector but the broader clean energy transition in the United States.
The post Trump Admin Pays TotalEnegries $1B to Scrap Wind Projects, Putting a Hold on America’s Clean Energy Plans appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

