Dear Friends,
What’s more important? Political fervor or economic reality? Culture war rhetoric or constituents’ wellbeing? We are about to find out.
The new administration is moving at breathtaking speed to bolster fossil fuels, roll back federal policies and departments, and blunt the clean-tech transformation. Fortunately, the transition is happening on such a big scale and on so many different levels – globally, locally, and increasingly individually – that this gumming up of the process cannot stop it. Unfortunately, these reversals in national support will slow down the transition, drive up energy costs, and handicap the United States in the new-energy race.
Let’s cut to the chase: we need an affordable, reliable, and safe energy system. Historically, fossil fuels have been our only choice, and they still provide almost 80% of our energy in the United States. But the new kids on the block (wind, solar, and batteries) are now outcompeting them, providing much cleaner energy that, when coupled together, can be pretty darn reliable and handle increasingly larger parts of the load – all at a much cheaper price. That’s why in 2025, 93% of new power generation in the U.S. is expected from wind, solar, and batteries, while only 7% from natural gas, and none from coal.
While renewables aren’t perfect, their economic advantage is causing a tsunami within the energy sector. The stark reality is that we need this record-breaking growth to continue, in part because renewables are so much quicker to bring online than new natural gas or nuclear that they can more immediately meet the burgeoning power demand for AI and electrification. Other forms of clean technologies, like new nuclear and long-term storage, hold great promise – and need policy support as well. Tellingly, our economic nemesis, China, continues to provide aggressive policy support and investment to dominate these new technologies, spending more than the U.S., UK, and EU combined last year.
Another economic reality? The clean-tech transition has reshored manufacturing jobs and created investment opportunities across the United States, attracting $1 trillion in investment. Importantly from a political perspective, 60% of projects and 85% of dollars are in conservative districts.
In the short run, the administration’s moves may score with the political base. But in the long run, they cause economic pain for all of us – squelching job growth, driving up energy costs, hampering reliability as demand is soaring, and exposing all of us to higher costs from climate impacts. Political fervor or economic reality? The winner of this race sets the pace for our future.
Sincerely,
The C-Change Conversations Team
Notable Quote
“As Republicans, we should take a thoughtful approach and seek to refine and improve the IRA’s energy provisions in a way that promotes market certainty and continues to incentivize a comprehensive energy strategy. As a surgeon I would say, use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.”
– Congresswoman (IA) Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Conservative Climate Caucus chair
News of Concern
Local jobs and growth are the most important drivers of any administration’s success, which is why the pushback against clean tech is such a lose-lose scenario. Red states – including Georgia, North Carolina, Montana, and Nevada – actually have the most to lose from the administration’s federal funding freeze on clean energy. The private investment bonanza and “once-in-a-generation manufacturing boom” promised to workers in these states is in jeopardy. Where is the economic sense in that?
This energy policy whirlwind has been set against the backdrop of the hottest January on record across the globe – except in the U.S., where a polar vortex is misbehaving and plunged most of the nation into a deep freeze (except Alaska, which experienced record highs). Our heads are spinning – global warming could perversely be causing extreme cold as well as extreme heat, and a growing body of research predicts this pattern could worsen in a warming world.
It’s only going to get worse as it gets warmer. The administration’s proposed cuts to FEMA will mean fewer dollars in aid when weather-related disasters occur – and these disasters tend to happen more in Republican states, which get more relief funding than Democratic states. Again we ask: which is more important – politics or economics?
Saying it isn’t real doesn’t keep you safe. In West Virginia, only 57% of residents believe climate change is happening but experts say the devastating flooding the state experienced in February was made more extreme by warming temperatures, and that it is likely to happen again. On the federal level, the new administration has changed policy to enable roads, bridges, and federal buildings to be built without factoring in the new threats from climate change, putting billions of infrastructure dollars at risk. We can’t make ourselves safer unless we accept the realities and plan for them.
What do we gain through the scuttling of offshore wind projects, when costs have come down so fast and job opportunities have supported so many people in (again) primarily Republican districts? What gains will balance out the $1 billion that taxpayers will lose from the shut down of EV chargers on federal property?
One last note before moving on to more hopeful news: we are worried about chocolate in our warming world. Last year, 71% of cocoa-growing regions in West Africa were threatened as they experienced six extra weeks of extreme heat (above 89.6°F). Can you imagine Valentine’s month without chocolate? Heartbreaking.
News of Hope
Fortunately, while the administration pulls back on the reins of climate action, the rest of the world is spurring it on. Leaders of almost every country are pushing forward on climate goals. Leaders of most faiths are rallying as “good stewards of the Earth.” Philanthropies are pledging continued support for climate action. And states – even conservative ones – are staying the course toward net-zero. Because they can all see the economic pain of failure and the gain of successfully transitioning to a lower-carbon economy.
Those gains are spurring global investment in our low-carbon energy transition – to the tune of more than $2 trillion for the first time last year. Even the Middle East is transitioning as major solar projects are on track to make renewables 30% of total capacity in five years in seven countries. There’s simply no denying – even by oil-rich countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia – that renewable energy makes financial sense.
Back home, simpler transitions – how we heat and cool our homes, for example – are gaining traction. Heat pump sales are soaring as we realize that turning to cleaner energy doesn’t have to mean sacrificing comfort or convenience. Heat pumps are simply more efficient and less polluting than fossil fuel furnaces, so they just make more sense.
Notable Graph
Whether you tune in for the game, the commercials, or the munchies, the Super Bowl is a big event in the United States – and climate change is becoming a player. This graphic shows how much warmer Super Bowl Sunday has become since 1970. And in fact, all 30 NFL cities are seeing two weeks more of extremely hot days, which imperils the health of the players as well as our joy in the game.
Notable Video
Source: Science Moms
If you were watching the Super Bowl, you might have caught this compelling ad about the importance of climate action. Created by Science Moms, a nonpartisan group of mothers who are also climate scientists, the commercial is a touching plea for all to recognize how climate change will impact our children’s health and future. We were moved and thrilled to see a climate change message on such a national platform.
