Trump’s energy program and its impact on clean technology and workers

Shortly after Donald Trump has forgiven that the insurrectionists imprisoned for having stormed the American capitol, he signed decrees to withdraw the nation from the Paris Agreement and retain unused funds for the main achievements of the President Biden: The law of $ 1.2 billion Bipartisan that Congress had already approved and allocated.

Trump has committed to “release the energy potential of America”, referring to the country’s oil and gas resources. This strategy will erode the long-term potential of America, harming the own economy and national well-being.

Trump’s goal is to flood domestic markets to reduce energy prices, especially as electricity demand due to new data centers and artificial intelligence. It seems good on paper. However, the United States is already the world’s leading producer of oil and gas, and the federal government does not dictate the exploratory decisions of the oil and gas conference room. In addition, public services have added wind, solar and battery storage to record rates in 2024, representing 94% of all these capacity additions.

“In the past two years, this country has invested more than $ 130 billion in new factories – in red states and blue states – to build solar panels, advanced batteries and other components. We have enough factory capacity to meet our domestic demand for solar panels. We also quickly go in this direction for the national production of advanced battery, ”explains Robert Deans, director of strategic engagement of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Deans spoke during a virtual press event organized by the United States Energy Associationwhere I was panellist. Last year, investors channeled 2.1 billions of dollars in renewable energies worldwide. Meanwhile, 200 countries have undertaken to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris climate agreement, which aims to alleviate the most damaging effects of global warming: temperatures, droughts and floods.

Other panelists disagreed with Deans’ claims or their context, stressing that the main objective of the American electricity policy should be affordability, accessibility and reliability. They stressed that coal and natural gas operated all the time compared to renewable energies, which have 35% capacity factors because the sun does not always shine or that the wind does not blow constantly. Therefore, renewable energies require backup generation or storage of batteries, adding to the cost.

Renewable tripling

If noting the challenges of climate change is the ultimate objective, climate analysts say that we must triple our use of renewable energies by 2030. The delay in this objective will result in economic and environmental costs for our communities. Consider this: Under the law on the reduction of inflation, the private sector has announced at least 210 important green energy and vehicle projects on a national scale. According to the results of non -partisan environmental entrepreneurs, these projects will create 74,181 jobs and attract $ 86.3 billion, if they materialize.

In 2024, the United States underwent economic loss of natural disasters totaling around $ 217.8 billion, with insured losses totaling $ 112.7 billion. Hurricane Helene and Milton caused these losses. California forest fires 2025 are expected to cost between $ 28 billion and $ 75 billion. Around the world, losses provided in 2024 have totaled $ 145 billion, Aon notes.

According to the bank LazardRenewable energy is the cheapest form of electrical energy. Classifying them in terms of cost, it indicates that the unubnamed onshore power is the cheapest, followed by solar energy on the scale of public services, the cycle factories combined with natural gas, cutting -edge gas and factories nuclear energy.

To emphasize the point more, a study from the University of Harvard 2019 estimated that health -related costs from air pollution of fossil fuels amount here to $ 820 billion per year. The International Monetary Fund calculates that health costs from air pollution associated with fossil fuels vary from 2.9 dollars to $ 8.1 dollars per year. The environmental protection agency said the social cost of carbon is between $ 50 and $ 200 per ton. The social cost of carbon is economic damage linked to CO2 emissions.

“Over the past 35 years, we have burned more coal, gas and oil worldwide than in history. We have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 20% at its highest level, ”explains Deans. “We hope these communities get the correction they need. And we want to move on clean energy sources so as not to continue to destroy communities and life. »»

One of the measures that Trump has implemented is the restoration of regulations on coal electric power plants – a concession to coal -producing states. However, Dan Brouillette, secretary of the American Department of Energy from 2019 to 2021 under Trump, notes that if public services work to provide reliable power and 24 hours a day, they remain determined to reduce their emissions. “All are dedicated to cleaner energy, but they are also engaged in power 24/7.”

The role of energy in the global economy

He adds: “When we look at the history of the world, we look at the conflicts that this nation fought throughout the generations. Many of them, if not all, had a link with energy, energy production and energy availability. It is therefore one of the fundamental things that you consider as president. »»

To this end, the US Energy Information Administration projects a 10-15% In demand by 2030, drawn mainly by new data centers and AI which require a constant source of energy. The shortage, on the other hand, will increase prices. The same agency indicates that natural gas provides 43% of all electricity production in this country, while renewable energies represent 20%. Both often work together, as Natural gas supports renewable energiesbut also battery storage.

Many panelists have agreed that the solution does not reside in a single source of energy but in a mixture of fuels – an all -safe energy strategy. Scott Segal, co -president of the political resolution group for Bracewell, which represents public services, has challenged certain environmental points. He maintains that “externalities” have wider applications than health and environmental costs not included in energy prices.

“You cannot just consider the externalities associated with the extraction of coal,” he says. “You must also consider what happens to those who are the least able to afford high energy costs – for their budgeting of households.” Segal notes that his business questioned communities near oil refineries, noting that they were “favorably arranged for the exploitation and continuous expansion” of plants. “The concerns of first -line communities are dealt with by the authorization process.”

However, the rejection by Trump of climate change and snobing of the Paris Agreement is blatant omissions in the energy strategy “all that precedes”. In addition, its executive decree to interrupt the financing of the legislation on green energy and the infrastructures promulgated under Biden contradicts American case law; He cannot unilaterally cancel the laws.

Meanwhile, Trump aims to reduce research and development dollars for advanced technologies. Although these cuts are presented as an evolution towards efficiency, they undermine long -term strategic energy objectives which are paid financially and ecologically. Consider shale gas drilling or advanced batteries – the initiatives made possible because the government has provided seed funds.

“Prosperous countries invest in the future. We must invest, and not give up this territory to our competitors abroad. We want American workers and businesses to be winners on this market. Research and development is the seed corn of this growth, ”explains Deans, with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The 21st century economy demands this, and Congress recognizes this, as evidenced by the plethora of green energy projects in the red and blue states.

Also by this author:

Natural gas supports renewable energies – a fact that Trump must learn

Energy companies can tip the climate debate

A more in -depth examination of the Trump Energy Secretary

Can we triple the use of renewable energies?