The inability of the Trump Administration to recognize the threat posed by climate change was on display again this month. The New York Times reports that U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced: ‟No more climate-change worship… As I’ve said before and will say again, we are done with that shit.” In 1979, the Department of Defense warned President Carter that climate change is going to be an important national security issue, and since that time this has only become clearer to the U.S. military. Hegseth may be done with climate change, but it is not done with him, nor us.

One way climate change is coming for the Trump Administration is in rising energy prices. After being elected on a promise to reduce household costs, electricity prices have risen about 10% in the last year. As I’ve noted many times, solar power in combination with batteries is quickly becoming the cheapest source of electricity ever known. Trump’s war on solar and wind is likely going to come back to bite him. A New York Times editorial states that ‟energy prices are likely to rise most in states that are not prioritizing clean energy, including Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma,” noting that the Republican party is actually working against market forces that lower energy costs for Americans. The Times describes how electricity prices have become a key issue in the campaign for governor in New Jersey, and The Washington Post notes that this issue is appearing in various campaigns across the country.

California is an example of a state that is rapidly expanding cheap solar energy, which Reuters notes ‟may yet emerge as 2025’s most significant power story.” In 2025, solar in California has generated more electricity than the state’s fossil-fuel power plants for the longest stretch ever, with solar output 15% higher for January–July than the same period last year. And the 75% rise in the state’s battery-storage capacity enables the solar-generated power to remain available when the sun goes down. Utilities have thus been able to cut fossil-fuel-fired generation by 21%. Solar accounted for ‟a record 39% of total utility-supplied generation during January to July, up from 33% during the same period in 2024.” Texas generated the second-most amount of solar electricity at 10% of its total power mix.

It is particularly noteworthy that electricity generated from fossil fuels, despite increased electricity demand, is on the decline in California. Reuters points out that it hit a new low of just 26% so far this year, which compares to a national average of 55%. ‟Such a steep drop in fossil generation had a commensurate impact on associated emissions, which in July 2025 were 2.1 million metric tons of CO2 less than in July 2024, and by far the lowest for that month on record.”

All this solar is helping to keep the rise of electricity prices in California below the national average, even while California utilities make large investments to create resilience to wildfire. ‟Going forward, the price-depressing impact of the hefty share of solar power within California’s generation system is expected to act as a drag on overall electricity costs, even as power bills are expected to keep climbing elsewhere.”

In the face of California’s success with renewable power, which is being mirrored around the world, The New York Times reports that the Trump Administration is putting up hundreds of millions of dollars to try and keep coal plants operating. This includes making $625 million available for coal-plant upgrades, putting 13.1 million acres of federal land up for lease for coal mining and reducing the royalty rates on coal that is mined. In addition, Trump’s EPA has promised to repeal dozens of regulations that limit air and water pollution from coal plants. The Times also notes that a ‟growing number of miners accuse the Trump administration of ignoring workers while using hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies to bolster the companies that operate coal plants and mining operations.”

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stated, with the divisive meanness that is this Administration’s hallmark, that coal was “out of fashion with the chardonnay set in San Francisco, Boulder, Colo., and New York City.” The reality is that coal is a bad bet economically. The New York Times reports that 23 coal plants are scheduled to close (or be converted to natural gas) just this year. ‟From 2026 to 2030, 109 more units are expected to stop burning coal.” Trump’s handouts to the industry might prolong the operating lives of some coal plants for a short period, but ‟they will not reverse the decline of an industry hurtling into economic and technological obsolescence.” Unlike wind and solar with batteries, coal plants cannot respond to changes in demand on the grid, and they are much more expensive to operate and maintain. In addition, solar panels and batteries are continuing to benefit from research and innovation, while coal-power plants are pretty much steam engines from the 19th century.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels will inevitably result in the closing of oil refineries, which has major implications for the people who work at these facilities and the local community. KneeDeep Times takes a look at the decision to close the refinery in Benicia, California, including how lessons learned from the closing of another nearby refinery in 2020 can be applied to reduce impacts to the employees and community.

Rolling Stone has an in-depth look at the state of fossil-fuel development in Alaska, and the growing opposition to Trump’s proposal for an 800-mile natural-gas pipeline from the state’s north slope to Cook Inlet south of Anchorage. While oil companies have long dominated politics in Alaska through campaign donations, there is widespread opposition to this and other efforts to expand fossil-fuel infrastructure in the state. Opponents cite climate change, public health impacts and the destruction of Alaska’s unique natural resources and native culture. This is shaping up to be an important battle as Trump attempts to reinforce and expand U.S. dependence on fossil fuels in the face of renewable energy’s drop in price and its increasing popularity.

Meanwhile, Danger Season continues. Reuters reports that Typhoon Bualoi destroyed nearly 170,000 houses in Vietnam and caused an estimated $303 million of property damage. At least 29 people are dead and 22 others missing. Deadly downpours hit India, Nepal, China and Thailand in addition to Vietnam. More than 70 people have been killed by the floods and landslides that washed away homes, roads and bridges in eastern India. At least 50 are dead in Nepal. The New York Times notes that a month of rain fell in a single day in Los Angeles.

The New York Times reports that the Trump Administration has canceled the permits for one of the largest solar projects in the United States. Just like with the offshore-wind projects, no reason has been given by the Department of Interior for this action. Esmeralda 7, located in the Nevada desert near Las Vegas, would have supplied electricity for over 2 million homes. Ironically, one of the developers, NextEra Energy, donated $5 million to build Trump’s ballroom at the White House. A lot of good that did.

The Independent reports on an announcement from university lab scientists in Australia that they have achieved over 27% efficiency in a solar panel. This value, which refers to the percentage of incident solar energy that is converted into electricity, is very high. The laboratory was able to use the mineral perovskite as part of the experimental panel, and this is a chemistry that is being actively explored around the world to improve efficiency. A remaining challenge is that perovskite tends to degrade relatively quickly. Currently, solar panels that are deployed around the world have an efficiency of less than 20%.

< back to news+views