Earth Matters: Trump's obsession with killing renewable energy shows what a lie 'America First' is

Renewable energy sources had a very good 2024. Not only were a lot of new facilities added to U.S. electricity-generating capacity, but also the combined output of the nation’s total wind and solar operations exceeded output from coal-powered plants for the first time.

There’s still a very long way to go, and the pace needs accelerating in order to cut carbon emissions soonest. However, the climate-related provisions of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act have so far spurred more than $270 billion in new private investment in clean energy projects, including solar and wind, as well as energy storage, the latter mostly battery facilities. Funding has also gone into boosting the domestic manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, battery factories, and other essential elements of the renewable energy supply chain.

But Donald Trump, the outlaw prez, is determined to kneecap the renewables industry, and he has already taken action by commanding that no new permits for wind or solar projects be approved on federal land. The IRA-improved wind and solar investment and production credits are also quite likely at risk of being chopped. But congressional opposition could attenuate or even squelch any moves he tries to take there. And, despite what he and his unitary executive theorists may think, he cannot just eliminate all this by fiat, or as his pal Vlad Putin might say, by ukase.

Trump’s verbal assaults on solar energy are relatively new. But his pathologically juvenile blasts at wind turbines, especially the offshore ones—accompanied with distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies about their impacts—have a longer history. His obsession certainly poses difficulties for the wind industry, which has had lots of those recently from inflation and supply chain disruptions. But Diana DiGangi at Utility Dive notes:

Felisa Sanchez, a partner with law firm K&L Gates’ maritime and finance practice groups, said that Trump’s goal to end offshore wind may come into conflict with his goal of boosting the U.S. economy and its domestic manufacturing.

“It’s hard to say ‘we’re going to end offshore wind’ when you’re also impacting a vast supply chain that has already been going for the last few years that has been implemented — when ports have been developed, and vessels have started to either be under construction or have come out of the yard ready to work in offshore wind,” she said.

In other words, Sanchez accepts the increasingly conventional wisdom that the energy transformation is too far along, with too much money already being made, to be reversed. What’s missing from that analysis is any consideration of how much damage can be caused by the delays imposed via Trump’s compulsive mania.

Remember, this is the guy who long called climate change a “Chinese hoax” and has never retreated from his scientific illiteracy in the matter. This is a guy who is thrilled by the prospect of AI-data centers electrified by resurrected or new coal power plants. This is a guy who by executive order (pending possible litigation) has rewritten federal policy to exclude wind and solar as energy sources. This is a guy who last year got $96 million in campaign cash directly from the oil and gas industry, which is at peak production, peak revenue, and peak political clout at a crucial juncture in civilization’s future. Whatever else he can or cannot do, he can certainly make a big mess as the past 10 days have demonstrated.

Besides the numbskullery involved in adopting greenhouse gas-related policies that dare Nature to do her worst, aggressively trashing renewables means leaving Americans in the dust compared with Europe and China, where green transitions are already outpacing the United States in clean energy progress. So much for that supposed “energy dominance” Trump vows.

U.S. WIND SHOWS CURRENT PROWESS AND FUTURE PROMISE

One supremely frustrating aspect of this diehard opposition to wind power came last August. Three new, encouraging reports were announced and posted at energy.gov/windreport. They show, once again, that wind is a key element of the green transition despite … er … headwinds. You can read a summary at America’s Growing Wind Energy Future — Three New Reports.

One of the three, the Land-Based Wind Market Report, spotlights the steady addition of wind capacity onshore. Put together by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the report tallies the nearly 6,500 megawatts (MW) of new utility-scale, land-based wind capacity added in 2023. That brought the total cumulative installed wind capacity a year ago to nearly 150,500 MW—the equivalent of powering some 45 million American homes. By November 2024, that had risen to 153,000 MW with several thousand more pending completion.

Currently, 73,000 wind turbines operate onshore in the U.S., with some in every state. Wind energy in 2023 generated 10% of total electricity nationwide, and more than 59% of electricity in Iowa, more than 55% in South Dakota, and more than 40% in Kansas and Oklahoma. Texas, which generates 22% of its electricity from wind, is the leader in turbine capacity, its 41,600 MW being more than the next four highest capacity states combined.

Offshore, the U.S. is way behind Europe, especially the U.K., and China in turbine deployment. A DoE labs report this month found that the U.S. West Coast could add 33,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2050. That may not seem like much since one recent DoE report forecasts a 128% increase in U.S. electricity demand by 2035, but every bit counts:

Deploying floating wind offshore the West Coast could deliver up to 33 GW and help build out needed transmission, but the youth of floating wind technology and a lack of needed infrastructure pose barriers, according to a Jan. 15 report from the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

PNNL and NREL researchers spent two years modeling the costs and benefits of deploying floating wind along the Pacific coast by 2050, PNNL said in a release. The least-cost scenario the researchers identified was adding 13 GW offshore California and 2 GW offshore Oregon by 2035, and increasing that to 25 GW offshore California, 6 GW offshore Oregon and 2 GW offshore Washington by 2050.

Trump has made a big deal out of his “America First” slogan initially used by Nazi sympathizers in the United States before World War II. That he made his first post-presidential call to the thuggish “fantastic guy” Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is also a pal of Vladimir Putin, shows you how much he really believes that slogan. If successful, his attacks on renewables, while China and Europe keep expanding theirs, will undermine the working class that the fake populist guy claims to champion while sabotaging the already too feeble efforts to cut carbon emissions and kill existing jobs and potential jobs by the tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands.

We can’t expect “the market” to bulldoze its way past Trumpian energy policy. Adding this fight to all the others the resistance confronts is a necessity.

—Meteor Blades

WEEKLY ECO-VIDEO

RESOURCES & ACTION

Top 2024 Victories for People and Planet to Inspire Next Year’s Activism. Across the globe, people took bold steps to care for the planet; 2024 showed us the strength of coming together with purpose and passion.
Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. This screening tool identifies disadvantaged communities that are underserved and overburdened by pollution. It provides socioeconomic, environmental, health, and climate info to inform decisions.

GREEN BRIEF

A pair of encouraging charts from Canary Media.

Dan McCarthy writes: According to an analysis done last July by Michael Thomas, a climate journalist and founder of Cleanview, the average capacity of a solar project built in the first half of 2024 was roughly six times bigger than it was a decade prior, in 2014. Wind projects grew about three times bigger between 2005 and 2024. And grid batteries, which only started to take off in recent years, were on average 15 times bigger in 2024 than they were just five years earlier, in 2019. Just to drive it home further: The largest solar project that went online in 2014 was 151 megawatts. The biggest solar project last year? The 690-MW Gemini Project in Nevada, which was paired with a 380-MW grid battery — last year’s biggest storage installation.

big clean energy projects — Go here to zoom in on specific projects.

Meanwhile, solar installations dominated completed power plant additions — 34 gigawatts of utility-scale solar were constructed across the United States, a 74% leap from 2023’s record-high year. As usual, Texas and California led the increase.

—Meteor Blades

RESEARCH & STUDIES

Closing coal plants in environmental justice communities first would save more lives
Existing EV batteries may last up to 40% longer than expected
Microplastics Block Blood Flow in Brains of Mice
Is a key ocean current system slowing down? A new study adds to the debate
HALF A DOZEN OTHER THINGS TO READ (OR LISTEN TO)

Global wildlife trade is an enormous market — a look at the billions of animals the U.S. imports from nearly 30,000 species by Michael Tlusty, Alice Catherine Hughes, and Andrew Rhyne. New research that we and a team of colleagues published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that, over the last 22 years, people in the U.S. legally imported nearly 2.85 billion individual animals representing almost 30,000 species. Some of these wild animals become pets, such as reptiles, spiders, clownfish, chimpanzees, and even tigers. Thousands end up in zoos and aquariums, where many species on display come directly from the wild. Medical research uses macaque monkeys and imports up to 39,000 of them every year. The fashion trade imports around 1 million to 2 million crocodile skins every year. Hunting trophies are also included in wildlife. Capturing wildlife to sell to exporters can be an important income source for rural communities around the world, especially in Africa. However, wild imported species can also spread diseases or parasites or become invasive. In fact, these risks are so worrying that many imported animals are classed as “injurious wildlife” due to their potential role in transmitting diseases to native species.

U.S.‘s wind and solar generated more power than coal in 2024 by John Timmer at Ars Technica. The rapid growth of renewables has largely displaced fossil fuel generation—specifically coal—rather than meeting increased demand. Despite the rise in demand, however, the long-term decline in coal has continued in 2024, with generation via coal down by nearly 5%. This will mean that this is the first year that wind and solar will combine to outproduce coal. Collectively, they'll account for roughly 17% of the U.S.'s energy production, while coal will only provide about 15%. The boost in wind and solar production has also been larger than the increase in generation from natural gas, which remains the single largest source of power on the grid, generating nearly 44% of the electricity used in the U.S. While wind currently accounts for 60% of the "wind plus solar" figure, it's unlikely to stay on top for long. Generation from wind power grew by 7.6% compared to the same period a year earlier. By contrast, utility-scale solar generation increased by 31% over that same period, with small-scale solar (including rooftop installations) estimated to have increased by 15%.

A saguaro at sunset. — A saguaro at sunset

Saguaro Struggles: A Desert Icon Feels the Heat by at The Revelator. The Sonoran Desert is no stranger to heat, but as climate change makes heatwaves more frequent, intense, and long-lasting, the resilience of this desert’s most beloved plant is being tested. Tucson is the cactus’s stronghold, bookended by Saguaro National Park on both its east and west edges, but a 2018 study by the National Park Service rated the park as one of those put at greatest risk by climate change. The city, meanwhile, smashed heat records this past summer, including the longest number of consecutive days in the triple digits. Even plants native to this desert feel the heat: In the past few years many saguaros have lost arms, toppled over, or burned. Although it’s unlikely these iconic cacti are headed for extinction anytime soon, they’re in decline. And these newly harsh conditions have people wondering what the species’ survival will look like.

New floating solar array at Fort Liberty could set the stage for a floating solar revolution in the US southeast (photo courtesy of US Army) — New floating solar array at Fort Liberty could set the stage for a floating solar revolution in the U.S. southeast

Floating solar has massive potential in the US by Akielly Hu at Canary Media. Floating solar photovoltaics, also called “floatovoltaics,” is an emerging technology that’s taken off in countries across Asia and Europe, especially near urban areas with limited space available for land-based solar.It’s also an untapped resource for the U.S. clean energy transition, according to a new study by researchers at the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. They found that federally owned or managed reservoirs could hold enough floating solar to produce up to 1,476 terawatt-hours of clean electricity — enough to power about 100 million homes each year. [...] Even under the most conservative scenario the researchers considered, the potential of floating solar equals more than half of the solar capacity required for a fully carbon-free grid in the U.S. in 2050. Besides minimizing land use, floating solar shades water bodies, which reduces evaporation and conserves limited water supply at reservoirs. Water also cools down the panels, making them up to 15% more efficient than land-based solar.

Related: Earth Matters: Floating solar could provide 35% of world electricity; the right kind of optimism by Meteor Blades (April 2023).

States Are Doing a Terrible Job Enforcing Laws Meant to Protect Farmed Animals by Reynard Loki, who is editor and chief correspondent for Earth|Food|Life. at the Independent Media Institute. Farmed animals in the United States have minimal legal protections, and much of the abuse they endure is legal. Unfortunately, the federal Animal Welfare Act—which establishes protections for pets and nonhuman animals used for exhibition (like in zoos) and research—does not apply to farmed animals. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a poorly conceived regulatory framework regarding animal rights and the enforcement of the few protections that exist for animals raised and slaughtered for human consumption. [...] Most state anti-cruelty laws also exempt farmed animals or allow standard practices that are patently cruel. No federal law in the United States explicitly regulates the treatment of animals on farms, except for the small percentage raised organically.

How communities, officials and developers can work together on renewable energy development, an interview conducted by Erin X. Wong at High Country News with Katherine Hoff, a research fellow at the University of California Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment. She has spent the past three years studying how communities participate in conversations about what to build and where to build it.

High Country News: How do you think about local opposition to green energy development at this stage of the energy transition?

Katherine Hoff: I think what you’re seeing now is a reflection of decades of disregarding, overlooking and violating community and tribal voices in development, whether it be highways, whether it be energy infrastructure, whether it be industrial infrastructure. Rather than thinking of it as opposition, I think it’s helpful to think of it as community and tribal voices wanting input — wanting to collaborate on these projects (and) make sure that if they’re going to be affected by these projects, that these projects can also benefit them in some way. [...]

HCN: You’ve written about community benefits agreements — where developers can commit to local hiring, environmental monitoring or long-term funding in exchange for the impacts of their development — as a potential solution to local opposition. How are these different than simply setting up community funds?

KH: Community benefits agreements are legally binding, enforceable contracts between a developer and a community group or a group of communities, tribal representatives, labor unions, faith groups, etc. This is a binding contract that the developer and the community side will negotiate and then sign, usually with community governance mechanisms that are implemented along the way. It’s also a way of ensuring that communities have a voice at the table, not only when the project begins, but (also) over the life of the project.

WEEKLY BLUESKY POST

ECOPINION

The Perils of Ignoring Racial Equity in Disaster Relief and Recovery Are Costly by Melissa L. Finucane Vice President of Science & Innovation at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Now President Trump has revoked Executive Order 13985 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government) and Executive Order 14008 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad), with far-reaching implications for people in disaster areas, including how racial equity is addressed in disaster relief and recovery. When racial equity is ignored, disaster policies exacerbate existing inequities. Policies based solely on “merit” fail to recognize the steeper hill being climbed by historically underserved communities granted less access to resources, information, and decision processes. [...] To ensure the most effective use of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars for disaster response, recovery, and resilience, it makes sense to pre-position resources in the areas of highest need. Some communities—such as low-wealth communities or communities of color—are disproportionately impacted by disasters, in part because of historical or systemic disparities. A laser-like focus on assessing social inequities is thus essential for understanding where the highest areas of need are and to evaluate whether they are being assisted adequately. In short, matching disaster policy to social needs requires assessment of racial equity.

Related: Disasters Like the LA Fires Always Hit the Poor the Hardest. Trump Wants to Make It Worse by Matt Sledge at The Intercept.

Shlock and Awe: The Los Angeles fires shine a light on the wretched excess of the very rich by Robert Kuttner at The American Prospect. The Wall Street Journal’s Mansion section had a feature on rich people who had lost ultra-luxury homes in the Los Angeles fires. It opened with the case of Austin Russell. In 2021, he bought a home in the Upper Riviera area of Pacific Palisades for $83 million. Among other amenities, according to the Journal, it included a 20-seat theater, a temperature-controlled wine lounge, a retractable roof for stargazing in the master bedroom (sorry, the primary suite), and “a ballistic safe room where the owner could retreat in a crisis.” The mansion burned to the ground. The Journal does not reveal whether the ballistic safe room survived. Maybe this account made you envious. It made me wonder what kind of narcissistic asshole wants or needs such a house. The piece read like a commercial for a steeply progressive wealth tax. I had never heard of Austin Russell, or his company, Luminar Technologies. He turns out to have quite a story. Russell, age 29, is the world’s youngest billionaire.

Climate change demands a long-overdue reform of the property tax system by Vanessa Williamson and Ellis Chen at Brookings. Because localities rely heavily on property taxes, it will become increasingly difficult to raise regular and adequate revenue for local governments where climate change is taking a heavy toll. Global warming injects increasing uncertainty into home ownership as a basis for local government finance. For places with the resources to rebuild despite climate shocks—for example, many major cities—the current structure of the property tax encourages gentrification and, often, additional risky development.

How America Can Reconnect Its Neighborhoods Before the Next Climate Catastrophe by Kea Wilson at Streetsblog.A team of researchers recently took on the daunting task of analyzing and scoring the "sprawl index score" of every country on Earth, as well as how sprawl makes it harder — or easier — for residents to access direct routes to the destinations they rely on, particularly when traveling on sustainable modes. [...] Even though connected cities are undoubtedly more convenient, many Americans will happily pay a premium to live in disconnected neighborhoods, whether they're lured by the promise of privacy, quiet, hillside views, or isolation from what some residents might (troublingly) view as "undesirable" neighbors nearby. At the community scale, though, increasing sprawl has a wide range of harmful effects, including increased driving emissions, car crashes, and a raft of negative public health outcomes associated with a culture where most have no choice but to get behind the wheel. One of the most devastating downsides of sprawl, of course, is how it can compound the impacts of a climate disaster — something Millard-Ball, who is based in Los Angeles, has witnessed firsthand during this month's deadly firestorms. The wealthy hillside canyon neighborhoods that were among those most devastated by the Palisades fire were also among the least-connected regions in the Los Angeles area, in part because many of them offer only a handful of exits to a main highway; some residents fleeing that fire were even forced to abandon their cars when a chokepoints became too overwhelmed with traffic to allow most to pass through.

How MAHA Poisons the Food Movement by Tom Philpott at Mother Jones. Now that Trump has tapped him to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, my fear is that Kennedy’s reckless anti-vaccine stances, conspiracy theorizing, and love of some of the internet’s most unhinged “wellness” bunkum will make legitimate critiques of the ways we grow and process food appear equally crackpot—affirming a narrative that Big Ag and Big Food have promoted for decades. In this way, rather than pushing food production in a healthier direction, Kennedy’s ascent could bolster the status quo.