SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
clean energy
Why Did DOE Axe $3.7 Billion in Clean Energy Projects Days After a Global Climate Alert?
This is not simply a policy mistake. It’s a calculated abdication of leadership for a fleeting political win.
Jun 02, 2025
On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the cancellation of 24 clean energy and industrial decarbonization projects. The agency claimed this move would save taxpayers $3.6 billion. But the real cost—economic, environmental, and geopolitical—will be far greater.
The decision came just days after the World Meteorological Organization warned that the planet has a chance of breaching 2°C of warming within five years. Around the same time, Norway’s $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund—the largest in the world—projected that climate risk could erase 20% of its U.S. equity holdings. While other nations mobilize to confront escalating threats, the United States—the largest economy on Earth—is retreating. This is not simply a policy mistake. It’s a calculated abdication of leadership for a fleeting political win.
We’ve seen this pattern before. From “beautiful, clean coal” to climate denial in congressional hearings to billions in fossil fuel donations, the Republican Party has long treated climate action as a culture war wedge. Clean energy is no longer debated on the merits—it’s dismissed as “woke,” undermined not out of ideological consistency, but political convenience. Market-based climate solutions could align with core conservative values: competition, energy independence, national security. Instead, Congress continues to treat policy as performance—enabling headlines over outcomes, symbolism over strategy.
The consequences are immediate, and they are devastating.
We didn’t just cancel 24 projects. We canceled momentum. We canceled trust. We canceled a framework that had finally begun to reconnect federal capacity with local ambition.
Tens of thousands of potential jobs vanished overnight. The canceled projects spanned over a dozen states—from Alabama and Texas to California and Massachusetts. Cities like Birmingham, Baytown, Toledo, Zanesville, Modesto, and Holyoke had been preparing for long-overdue industrial upgrades: electrified glass furnaces, carbon-captured cement kilns, regional hydrogen hubs. These weren’t theoretical moonshots. They were shovel-ready projects with partners in place. Economic development agencies were mobilized. Union halls were staffing up. Community colleges had launched clean workforce programs. Then came the call: It’s over.
DOE’s rationale? These projects didn’t offer sufficient return on investment. But no cost-benefit analysis has been released. What we do know: The canceled projects would have reduced over 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually—the equivalent of taking 2 million cars off the road. These weren’t speculative technologies. They targeted sectors like steel, cement, chemicals, and paper—industries where emissions can be reduced, but not without public investment.
This wasn’t just climate policy. These were air quality improvements in neighborhoods with decades of industrial pollution. These were middle-class jobs, modernized infrastructure, and new revenue streams for local governments. They signaled that decarbonization could drive renewal—not austerity. That message mattered, especially in regions where federal support has long felt abstract or nonexistent.
So why cancel them?
Because it made for good optics. Many of the projects were located in red or swing districts. Cutting them allowed Republicans to posture against “wasteful” spending and energize their base. It transformed serious infrastructure investments into political theater. And Congress went along—not out of principle, but out of paralysis.
DOE now says it will redirect resources to long-horizon technologies: fusion, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. These are important pursuits. But they won’t cut emissions at a cement plant in 2028. They won’t lower energy costs at a food processing facility next year. And they won’t create jobs in Modesto or Toledo.
There’s nothing wrong with moonshots—unless they come at the expense of shovel-ready progress.
Because these projects weren’t paper proposals. Local governments had hired staff. Contractors were preparing bids. Manufacturers were retooling supply chains. Students had enrolled in new clean industry training programs. With no warning, that entire ecosystem has been upended.
That decision undermines more than climate credibility. It erodes trust in governance itself. How can communities build long-term economic development strategies if federal support can be revoked without explanation? Why would private investors stay at the table when the public sector walks away midstream?
Meanwhile, other nations are surging forward. The European Union is investing in clean steel and cement. Canada is building out low-carbon supply chains. Norway is doubling down on green industry. And China is scaling solar, electric vehicles, and hydrogen at unprecedented speed—cementing not only energy dominance but geopolitical power.
For an administration that brands itself “America First,” this is anything but. It is a strategic withdrawal—from economic competitiveness, global leadership, and the industrial future itself. We are ceding the next era of manufacturing—not just to allies, but to adversaries.
And none of this should be surprising. The Trump administration has been explicit about its intent: Strip climate out of agency missions, dismantle regulatory capacity, and discredit climate science. But the deeper failure lies in what Congress has allowed. The legislative branch is no longer functioning as a check on executive excess. It has become a bystander to the dismantling of public purpose.
We didn’t just cancel 24 projects. We canceled momentum. We canceled trust. We canceled a framework that had finally begun to reconnect federal capacity with local ambition. We walked away from thousands of jobs, millions of tons in emissions cuts, billions in co-investment—and a fragile sense of possibility.
And we did it for a press cycle. To placate donors. Fully aware of the consequences.
The cost won’t just be measured in carbon. It will be measured in time lost, in broken partnerships, in shuttered training programs and shelved contracts. And in the widening distance between the future we could build—and the one we keep choosing instead.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gov. Hochul, Stop Blocking a Greener Future and Implement Cap-and-Invest
Hochul’s decision to delay the implementation of New York’s Cap-Trade-and-Invest Program is a deeply misguided one that ignores the connection between the climate crisis and our city’s affordability crisis.
Mar 15, 2025
“Mom, there’s smoke coming from the Palisades!” Those were the words my 15-year-old son yelled to me last fall as he gazed out our apartment window in Upper Manhattan, overlooking the Hudson River. Looking over, there was indeed a plume of smoke rising across the river. By the next day, our apartment building smelled like a campfire. Over the following week, I read urgent social media posts from neighbors about brush fires in nearby Inwood Hill and Fort Tryon Parks. It felt dystopian, out of place for New York. The experience reminded me of talking with my young niece in the Bay Area, who once matter-of-factly told me that she couldn’t play outside because the air quality was bad. That wasn’t so unusual for California. But experiencing it here in New York? That was something entirely new.
Those fires of November 2024 made clear something we as New Yorkers have been largely ignoring since Superstorm Sandy: The frontlines of the climate crisis have reached the Big Apple. Given that urgency, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision in January to delay the implementation of New York’s Cap-Trade-and-Invest Program (NYCI) is deeply misguided. It’s a shortsighted decision with no political upside that ignores the connection between the climate crisis and our city’s affordability crisis. It is imperative that the governor quickly reverse course.
Back in 2019, New York leapt to the fore in setting ambitious benchmarks for greenhouse gas reduction and a just transition to a renewable economy. New York’s landmark Climate Law set out a process for this transition, and the law is now a model for other states and helped inspire former President Joe Biden’s climate policy.
Just as planting a tree is an act of faith in the continuity of community, investing in a livable, sustainable future for all New Yorkers is keeping a promise to our children, who will reap the benefits for generations to come.
But now we’re playing catch-up: Our state is failing to hit its emissions targets. Add to that a hostile presidential administration that largely denies the existence of the climate crisis, and is resolutely committed to investing in polluting fossil fuels, and you’d think the governor would step up to the plate. But instead, Gov. Hochul is retreating into a corner at the worst time.
Cap-and-invest policies are popular and effective. As recently as this past November, voters in Washington State voted overwhelmingly to continue their state’s cap-and-invest program. Why? Because Washingtonians saw the benefits of cap-and-invest in their everyday lives: greater access to affordable and free public transit; cleaner air in and around schools with zero-emissions school buses and efficient HVAC systems; and lower energy bills for low-income households and small businesses, who receive support for upgrading their gas furnaces to efficient electric alternatives. California, whose cap-and-invest program has been in place for over a decade, has seen even greater benefits thanks to the more than $26 billion that the law has generated.
New York has been part of a regional cap-and-invest program since 2009 called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI has cut power plant pollution by 50% in participating states and generated over $2 billion in revenue in New York alone. The proceeds funded job creation, air pollution monitoring in affected communities, and the installation of over 4,000 electric vehicle charging ports.
By refusing to implement NYCI, Governor Hochul is depriving our state of at least $2 billion in additional annual revenue. NYCI would support thousands of new jobs. It would facilitate new efficient electric heat pumps for homes across the state, which would save the average household $1,000 per year in energy bills. It would enable the buildout of EV infrastructure and empower communities to develop and implement a range of local clean energy initiatives. And at a time when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is facing a severe budget shortfall, NYCI would help make public transit more efficient, accessible, and reliable. All of that would reduce pollution—meaning a cleaner future for all.
NYCI isn’t free. But the costs of the program pale in comparison to the price we pay for climate-fueled extreme weather events and the health effects of fossil fuel pollution. We also know that the costs of inaction in New York State far outpace the costs of meeting our 2030 and 2050 emissions targets—by $115 billion.
Implementing NYCI isn’t just a financial issue, it’s a moral one. As someone organizing for climate action within my Jewish community, I often turn to Jewish tradition for inspiration. I think about a Jewish folk tale, about an old man planting a fig tree. When a passerby skeptically asks him if he expects to live long enough to consume the fruits of his labor, the old man replies, “My ancestors planted for me, and now I plant for my children.” Just as planting a tree is an act of faith in the continuity of community, investing in a livable, sustainable future for all New Yorkers is keeping a promise to our children, who will reap the benefits for generations to come.
It’s time for Gov. Hochul to avoid further inaction and implement the NYCI. At a time when the costs of climate action have never been higher, Gov. Hochul should take responsibility and lead New York toward a just transition toward a cleaner future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
25 Dems Vote to Confirm Trump's Interior Secretary, Who Conservationists Warn Endangers the Planet
"Doug Burgum will just be another rubber stamp for Trump's reckless energy agenda," wrote one conservationist.
Jan 31, 2025
With the help of 25 Democrats, the Senate voted Thursday to confirm U.S. President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of the Interior, billionaire and former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum—an ally of the fossil fuel industry.
Environmental groups expressed alarm over Burgum's nomination. As secretary of the interior, Burgum will oversee hundreds of millions of acres of federal land and water, and he has also been tapped as the president's "energy czar" and to lead a separate White House energy council.
During his confirmation hearing, Burgum told senators that the U.S. can use energy development as a way to promote peace and to lower consumer costs, and also raised concerns about the reliability of renewable energy sources promoted during the Biden administration, according to CBS News.
Burgum sailed through his confirmation process, securing his position atop the agency with a vote of 79-18.
The 18 senators who did not vote for him were: Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) were absent.
Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade associate and lobbying firm for the U.S. oil industry, expressed enthusiasm about Burgum's confirmation, according to The Washington Post.
"Doug Burgum has long been a champion for American energy leadership," Sommers said in a statement to the Post. "We look forward to working with him to implement a pro-American energy approach to federal leasing, starting with removing barriers to development on federal lands and waters and developing a new five-year offshore program."
Meanwhile, environmental groups blasted the Senate's confirmation of Burgum.
"Doug Burgum will just be another rubber stamp for Trump's reckless energy agenda. That isn't the leadership our public lands need," said Kristen Miller, executive director of Alaska Wilderness League, in a statement Friday. "Burgum's loyalty to Trump ignores both the economic realities and the climate crisis we're facing today, especially in Alaska."
The youth climate organization Sunrise Movement called Burgum's confirmation "a win for Big Oil billionaires" and pointed to Burgum's reported role in planning a meeting between Trump and energy executives in spring 2024, during which Trump suggested that they raise $1 billion for his campaign in exchange for tax breaks and large-scale deregulation.
"From opening more public lands for extraction to attacking countless protections of lands, water, and wildlife, it's clear that President Trump is committed to expanding fossil fuels and catering to industry at the expense of our climate, public lands and waters, and wildlife," according to a Wednesday letter sent to the Senate from over 30 environmental, watchdog, and public interest groups. "Doug Burgum will be charged with carrying out this unpopular and dangerous agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular