The America Decides (Special) Edition

"When America sneezes, the world catches a cold".

Most of us will have heard this phrase over the last 30 odd years. Though we are in changing times, this is still true. America, the US is material. What happens in the US matters. It's material.

I am going to - try - to keep my personal views of the candidates out of this. If you know me...you will know my vehement views on this. But through all the vitriol, pettiness, and bronzers, what about energy? What is the vision of these two candidates on energy?

The upcoming US election indeed presents voters with a critical choice between two fundamentally different visions for the country’s energy future. This choice is about more than power sources or fuel prices; it represents a decision on the nation’s long-term economic direction, energy security, and environmental commitments. On one hand, we have a path focused on fossil fuel development, aiming to secure traditional energy jobs and maintain domestic oil and gas production. On the other, a commitment to renewable energy—especially offshore wind—offers a path that aligns with recognising that climate change is an existential risk and also promises economic resilience, stability, and that environmental progress.

The case for fossil fuels: Familiarity...and immediate returns

Supporters of fossil fuel expansion argue that doubling down on oil, gas, and coal provides immediate economic stability, maintaining jobs and offering affordable energy - or to paraphrase Joe Hill, 'pie in the the sky, when you die of air quality, floods, over heating etc'.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that the traditional energy sector has a significant role in the US economy, particularly in states where drilling and refining operations are key job creators. Proponents contend that increasing oil and gas output will boost energy security, keep fuel costs down, and ensure the reliability of the grid.

The fossil fuel path emphasises leveraging the country's natural resources to fuel economic growth, and it appeals to voters looking for short-term stability. This approach may provide more predictable employment in regions with strong fossil fuel industries and could reduce US reliance on foreign energy sources by expanding domestic pipelines and production infrastructure, and hell in the volatile political and economic environment (chaos) of the last decade and so, I can sympathise with the desire stability, especially in the short term.

However, this strategy will eventually come at an economic cost as global markets move away from fossil fuels and penalties for carbon-heavy industries increase.

Moreover, the international energy market is evolving, with major economies now prioritising renewable energy to reduce their carbon footprints. Ignore the last year or so, the energy transition is a super trend, its only going one way. Investors and institutional stakeholders such as insurers and others are increasingly wary of fossil fuel investments, citing concerns over climate risk and the long-term profitability of carbon-heavy sectors. As a result, the financial landscape may soon penalise the US economy for clinging to traditional energy sources. The choice to favor fossil fuels may offer stability now, but it risks putting the US on the wrong side of global investment trends, missing out on the jobs and innovations that are rapidly emerging in the clean energy sector.

Put it this way, it is a surefire way to give China a free path to be the cleantech provider of choice for the world as its transitions.

Offshore Wind: A path to resilience and growth

In my opinion, a policy committed to renewable energy—particularly offshore wind—aligns with the shifts happening on a global scale and opens up significant potential for job creation, energy security, and environmental benefits. Offshore wind power isn’t merely an environmental choice; it represents a strategic economic opportunity for the US to secure a stable and abundant energy source, immune to price volatility and less susceptible to geopolitical disruptions than oil and gas.

In a decarbonised world, the price at the ePump will not rise when a missile is seen over the Middle East, or when Russia invades illegally another State.

Offshore wind projects, with adequate policy support, can spur growth across various sectors. Manufacturing facilities, supply chains, and infrastructure investments needed for wind power can bring jobs and development to new areas, diversifying local economies and offering long-term resilience. According to recent reports, the Atlantic US coast alone could see 13-20GW of offshore wind energy if federal initiatives continue, a figure that could drive significant employment and investment.

Yet, the industry has faced challenges under previous federal administrations, particularly during the Trump presidency. The threat of another 4 years is one of the reasons why the recent Central Atlantic auction was only half secured I am sure.

Past regulatory obstacles—such as delays in leasing and permitting—slowed the offshore wind pipeline, hampering early-stage project development. Recent insights, especially a nice piece from Aegir Insights and some good recent analysis from FT and Bloomberg, suggest that a second Trump term could have similar impacts, possibly limiting the tax incentives and federal support that offshore wind needs to thrive. BOEM has taken preemptive action, racing to advance projects ahead of the election, but a shift in policy could still slow down the industry’s progress.

To sustain a thriving offshore wind sector, the regulatory landscape must offer consistent and favorable policies rather than periodic setbacks.

An economic and environmental imperative

Supporting offshore wind offers a host of benefits beyond clean energy production. The development of this industry requires new supply chains, modernised ports, and manufacturing hubs—all of which contribute to economic diversification. This path not only establishes long-term employment opportunities but also aligns the US economy with a global market that is increasingly moving toward decarbonisation. Companies and nations around the world are investing in wind, solar, and other renewables, creating demand for the technologies, expertise, and infrastructure that the US could competitively supply.

Choosing offshore wind and renewables as a focal point for national energy policy is, therefore, not just a matter of environmental stewardship but also a strategic economic decision. With major economies setting ambitious climate targets, the US risks being left behind if it does not commit to developing its renewable energy resources. Offshore wind, with its potential for consistent, large-scale energy production, provides the US with a path to compete in the international clean energy market and attract investment from forward-thinking sectors.

And Americans need to remember, this is not an 'everything change on Monday' thing. It's called a transition. Indeed while Biden passed the hugely material IRA, there are more fossil fuels flowing right now than in Trumps tenure in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

So America decides

While I know so many other issues are at play, and indeed many of my beloved family, friends, and colleagues may see energy subordinate to other issues such as women's rights, I do see that part of this election is about choosing a vision for the future of US energy.

A fossil fuel-based path may offer near-term economic comfort, but it leaves the nation exposed to shifting global markets and an economy increasingly geared toward renewables. Offshore wind, by contrast, positions the US as a leader in the transition to clean energy, offering a sustainable solution to both environmental and economic challenges.

As the City Upon A Hill goes to the voting booth, it faces a clear choice: stay with familiar but diminishing fossil fuel advantages, or embrace offshore wind and renewable energy as the foundation of a resilient, competitive economy. As we stand on the brink of this critical decision, as a loving admirer of the US, its citizens, its culture, its sometimes annoying habit of always choosing the right thing, only when its tried everything else, in my heart I know that choosing renewables—especially offshore wind—signals a commitment to resilience, innovation, and sustainable leadership in the global energy landscape.

I want to see the US shine, and lead. And to do that they need to choose the future, and indeed not go back.

I am John MacAskill, and I approve of this message....