In the absence of any further huge political unrest or natural disaster, it is energy that is likely to dominate the news in 2025.
While some agricultural media tends to occupy itself with alternative fuels or devoting thousands of acres to various environmental schemes at ground level, there are some big changes coming down the line when Donald Trump takes office as US president on January 20, 2025.
There are several major policy shifts that have been signalled by both the incoming president and his transition team which are likely to have ramifications throughout the global energy supply system, and Ireland will not be immune to them.
America’s energy needs put first
From these various announcements, it might be perceived that the overall objective of the new presidency will be to overturn Biden’s climate action policies and let loose a much broader strategy for supplying the US, its industry and its transport, with energy.
In a recent speech, the president elect promised to reverse every Democrat-imposed restriction on the sourcing and distribution of home-produced American energy.
This commitment would allow such projects as the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to go ahead despite environmentalists declaring it dead back in 2021.
The pipeline was due to transfer 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta in Canada to US refineries but was cancelled by the then new Biden administration; the reversal of this decision would be the strongest signal yet that Trump means business.
LNG ban to be lifted
The temporary ban on the building of new facilities for the export of liquified natural gas (LNG) is also likely to be lifted, allowing more LNG to be sent to Europe just Ukraine turns off the Ukraine Transit Line.
The decision by Kiev will mean that from next month, Europe will have to compete with Asia for US gas exports; the expected resulting price increase causing potential damage to European industry, including machinery manufacturers.
Energy costs have been a major factor in the pricing of farm machinery, much of which is produced in Germany – a country which is entering its second year of recession.
To underline the importance of energy supplies to the country, it had been hoped that the slight price drop last year would bring some relief to the economy – it didn’t, and the German Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Robert Habeck declared that “the economic conditions are not satisfactory at the moment”.
High labour costs and excessive red tape are also blamed, but when questioned last year on the effect of rising energy prices, one manufacturer firmly declared that they were just another challenge, through tightly gritted teeth.
Fossil fuels for energy
Fossil fuels have long been considered the very demon of the modern world with a transition to renewables being urged upon the world population.
Trump has caught the mood of sullen rebellion and promised to reverse “the insane Biden EV mandate”, which insists that manufacturers produce a certain number of electric vehicles despite there being insufficient customers for them.
This top-down approach is a far cry from the olden days of Reagan and Thatcher insisting that the customer is king and you can’t buck the market, although both maxims possibly served an ulterior motive at the time.
Manufacturers of off-road vehicles have looked at battery power and rapidly dropped the idea except for niche markets where there is no requirement for high horsepower machines, around 75hp is considered the practical maximum for tractors.
The incoming US administration has also pledged to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement that seeks to limit carbon emissions, an agreement that China, which consumed four billion tonnes of coal in 2023, has not shown too much enthusiasm for either.
This clash between Biden’s desire to throw money at what is regarded as clean tech, and Trump’s avowed intent to put US interests first when it comes to energy supply and use, is shaping up to be the US political story of 2025, and his second term in general.
Unsettled science
But what of the science upon which all of this is supposedly based? As always, it is a question of which body of scientific thought one wants to take note of.
There are many threads to the growing feeling that climate activists have not got it quite right after all.
At a recent Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA), Taoiseach Simon Harris expressed his belief that “the planet is on fire”, yet recent data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recorded a fall in sea level temperatures over the last six months.
Pity the poor farmer
It has often been the case that the urban majority enjoy nothing more than telling farmers how to farm, and armed with the version of science they believe to be gospel, the urge to instruct and control will only become stronger.
Climate action seems here to stay as there is too much money involved. Tesla made $1.8 billion in selling carbon credits in 2023 and a whole new trading structure has been built around trading them globally.
The pressure upon farmers to respond to the government measures will increase and they are by no means all bad, but land is a precious commodity and with over eight billion people to feed on this planet, permanently taking it out of food production would be unwise.
Holding back on devoting land to rewilding or solar panels is an idea reinforced by Trump’s stated promise to declare a national energy emergency, not to address climate change, but to stop money being lavished upon it.
Could this trend in the US be replicated in other locations such as Europe?