Renewables

The reason why Donald Trump hates wind mills: Here’s why he claims renewable energy is a “joke”

Trump’s windmill grudge began in Scotland, became GOP doctrine. We test his claims on renewables, Paris, coal, cows, and reality.

Mike Segar

AS USA

Update: Sep 27th, 2025 18:33 EDT

Donald Trump’s feud with wind power, and renewable energy in general, appears to be based on a vibe as much as anything: “windmills” are ugly, useless and proof that green energy is a joke. He repeats lines about cost, reliability, birds and even whales that do not survive contact with the data, and he wraps them in a broader Republican story about jobs and freedom. But before we get to the facts, it helps to see where the real grudge possibly began.

Trump’s initial hatred: a Scottish wind farm and a spoiled view

If you are looking for the moment Trump’s beef with wind power went from casual grumbling to lifelong vendetta, head to Scotland. He spent years fighting an offshore wind project in view of his golf resort near Aberdeen, calling the turbines ugly and bad for property values. He lost in court. The wind farm went ahead. The quotes about “horrible windmills” kept coming. That could well be the seed. From there the aesthetic gripe grew into a political crusade.

The bigger picture: why Republicans generally hate clean energy

There is a standard GOP playbook here. Favor fossil fuels as the backbone of American power. Frame renewables as unreliable and expensive. Argue that climate rules are job killers and red tape. Add a culture war gloss about elites forcing you to buy a weak appliance and you have the shape of the argument. Trump runs that play with extra volume.

Here are some of Trump’s main talking points and what the facts actually say.

“Renewables are a joke. They do not work. Too expensive. Too weak.”

Trump’s take: Wind and solar do not keep the lights on, and they cost too much. He likes to toss in “your bills are coming down” and “Europe’s are triple.”

What the evidence says: New wind and solar are now among the cheapest sources of electricity to build. They scale fast and, paired with storage and modern grid management, do keep the lights on. Retail power prices in the United States have not been dropping. They have generally risen since 2022 and are projected to keep rising near term. Fossil fuels are still propped up by generous subsidies. If the market truly ran free, demand for coal would be falling far, far faster and gas would face tougher competition from renewables plus storage.

Bottom line: Cost curves and build rates say renewables work and are not a joke. Intermittency is real, which is why grids add storage and flexible demand. That is engineering, not a punchline.

“The Paris climate accord is fake. America paid, others did not.”

Trump’s take: The United States got a bad deal and carried the load while other countries skated.

What the evidence says: Paris is a framework where each country sets its own target and contribution. It is voluntary in how you design your plan, binding in reporting and transparency. The United States is the largest historical source of carbon dioxide, which matters because CO₂ hangs around. Big emitters past and present have outsized responsibility to cut faster and help poorer countries adapt.

Bottom line: Paris is not a shakedown. It is a floor, not a ceiling. If anything, countries have pledged too little, not too much.

“Clean, beautiful coal.”

Trump’s take: Coal can be cleaned up and should be celebrated.

What the evidence says: Scrubbers can reduce some pollutants, and carbon capture exists on paper and in a few projects, but coal remains the dirtiest mainstream fuel for climate and a major driver of deadly air pollution. Calling coal “clean” skips the health and climate math.

Bottom line: You can reduce coal’s harms but you do not turn it into a clean fuel. The public health toll is real.

“Carbon footprint is a hoax. Made up by people with bad intentions.”

Trump’s take: The whole concept is a trick to scare you.

What the evidence says: The physics are not a marketing gimmick. We have known since the 1850s that CO₂ traps heat. That has been confirmed in labs, in the atmosphere, and in the ocean. The world’s leading scientific bodies say human activity has unequivocally warmed the planet. Even a U.S. government assessment said climate impacts are already being felt at home.

Bottom line: You can argue policy. You cannot wish away basic science.

“Radical environmentalists want no more cows.”

Trump’s take: The green agenda is coming for your burger.

What the evidence says: Cows produce methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas. Cutting methane is a fast way to slow warming. The conversation is about feed changes, manure management, better land use, and less waste, not banning cattle. Claims of “no more cows” are straw man politics.

Bottom line: Agriculture has to cut methane. That does not mean ending cows. It means doing the work smarter.

Back to the windmills

Trump’s Scottish loss explains the tone, but the content still matters. He says wind turbines kill the view, kill the grid, kill your wallet, and are proof climate policy is a con. The record shows something else. Wind and solar have gotten cheap. Grids are adapting. The Paris framework asks every country to do its share. Coal is not clean, no matter how you describe it. The science on warming is settled, and the impacts are here.

If you live on an island that floods at high tide or in a city that keeps smashing heat records, you do not need a lecture about “jokes.” You need energy that is cleaner, cheaper to run, and resilient. That is where the world is heading, court losses and golf course views included.