The Guardian describes a new report concluding that the Trump Administration represents the “most abrupt shift in energy and climate policy in recent memory,” and that this is slowing the pace of U.S. emission cuts from the rate achieved over the past two decades. ‟The US is still expected to reduce its planet-heating emissions by between 26% and 35% by 2035 compared with 2005 levels, but this is well below the 38% to 56% reduction by 2035” that was forecast just last year. Even under the best-case scenario, with projected fossil-fuel costs high and a swift deployment of renewable energy, U.S. emission cuts by 2040 will only be 43%, which is below the target Biden set for the country. ‟In the worst case, in which clean energy is severely constrained by economic and political factors, U.S. emissions could even tick up slightly at the end of 2030s.” As they say, elections have consequences.

One of the most important tipping points that our new climate could cross is the slowing or full collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the group of ocean currents that move water and heat away from the equator across the Atlantic Ocean toward the Arctic. Grist notes that, “should the currents break down, the most frightening predictions describe a world thrown into chaos: Drought could destroy India, South America, and Africa; the Eastern Seaboard of the United States would see dramatic sea level rise; and an arctic chill would spread across Europe.” When this might happen is a topic of great scientific study. A new analysis suggests that the full collapse of the currents might not be reached this century, though previous predictions had suggested the collapse could occur sooner. “One problem with estimating a drop-dead date for AMOC is that researchers still don’t understand when the currents might reach a tipping point, a threshold that, when crossed, will have a cascading effect from which there is no return.”

The Guardian speaks with an expert climate communicator about climate tipping points, what they might mean for our future and how to discuss them. Despite the reality that these points are near, and that some already may have been crossed, many people are failing to understand the degree of disruption that these changes imply for human civilization (I explain this in CODE RED: Time to Tip the Climate Odds in Our Favor).

Canary Media examines the use of low-carbon cement in new data centers as part of a partnership between tech giants and startups that have developed new cement technologies. This is particularly important in light of the federal government’s complete reversal of support for low-carbon approaches. “In late May, the DOE said it was canceling over $3.7 billion in awards for two dozen projects aimed at decarbonizing everything from cement kilns and glassmaking furnaces to mac-and-cheese factories and whiskey distilleries.”

Canary Media reports that, after freezing federal support for EV charging, the Trump Administration has decided to release remaining funds that were appropriated by Congress in the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Trump’s initial pause “forced states to halt work underway on contracts and projects representing roughly half of the $5 billion in program funding.” This decision comes after a federal court decided that the Administration’s decision to cancel funding for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program was illegal. CNBC notes that Ford and GM reported record EV sales last month, as consumers rush to take advantage of expiring tax credits.

Inside Climate News explains how the Trump Administration is continuing its attack on renewable energy, this time through the Department of Agriculture. The Department announced that it will no longer provide funding for solar and wind projects through the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), purportedly to keep farmland in production. This argument is patently absurd, as a USDA analysis in 2024 found that “about 424,000 acres were used for wind and solar, about 0.05 percent of the 897 million total pasture, rangeland and crop acres in the country.” Over half of the country’s cropland is used to grow corn and soybeans, much of it for biofuels, not food (corn for food is only about 2% of the country’s total corn production). Canary Media notes that “the amount of farmland converted to solar is far less than that lost for other reasons, including residential growth and artificial intelligence computing.” The USDA, of course, doesn’t care about these bigger threats to farmland.

Farmers are increasingly relying on income from wind and solar to complement losses from crops as commodity prices fall and weather extremes impact production. Through the REAP program, thousands of farmers have obtained solar panels to lower their energy bills and supplement their revenue. This two-decade-old program has provided $1.2 billion in grants and $2.5 billion in loan guarantees in rural areas nationwide, the vast majority of that going to farms. Iowa — the nation’s biggest corn-producing state — now gets about 60% of its electricity from wind.

Meanwhile, The Guardian visits Walworth, South Dakota, where a farmer was unable to use his land for a solar-energy array because of zoning restrictions created after he started to develop the project. This article is an excellent examination of how misinformation is being promulgated in rural communities and used to limit solar development. The farmer saw the array as a great way to diversify his revenue, and expand the property tax base of his community, which has very little public infrastructure. The contracted company ‟pulled out of the project before the county voted on its ordinance, but the commissioners adopted the restrictions anyway. The company is now building a 1,000 MW facility elsewhere in South Dakota and Walworth is still looking for the funds to build its jail.”

Trump is continuing his incoherent attack on offshore wind, a new domestic industry that is helping us meet growing electricity demand. After interfering with the completion of Empire Wind, which cost the developer $1 billion due to delays, and revoking the permits for Revolution Wind when the $6.4 billion project was nearing completion, the AP reports that the Trump Administration has just announced the revocation of $679 million from the Department of Transportation that was earmarked for infrastructure to support offshore-wind projects. Trump’s Energy Department also withdrew a previously-approved $716 million loan guarantee to upgrade and expand New Jersey’s transmission infrastructure to manage and distribute the electricity from offshore-wind sources. Canary Media reports that the developer of Revolution Wind, and the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, have each filed lawsuits attempting to overturn the Trump Administration’s cancellation of permits for the project. Calling the action ‟bizarre” and ‟unlawful,” they seek ‟immediate relief from a federal stop-work order that froze construction of Revolution Wind.” Delaying delivery of that power on such short notice ​“will increase risks to reliability,” warned the New England grid operator last week, adding that the hold-up could also increase utility bills.

In The New York Times, David Gelles provides a broad view of the impact of these foolish steps, which are risking thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment. Canary Media notes that fisherman are among those losing employment and income due to Trump’s capricious decisions. Ironically, many of these fisherman are Trump supporters. Said one: “It’s like having the rug pulled out from under you. …Nobody understands why Trump did it. I don’t know what Trump’s agenda is.” The agenda is clearly to maximize our dependence on fossil fuels for as long as possible, without regard to public health and welfare.

Grist quotes one industry analyst who states that international investors now “look at the U.S. like a third-world country in terms of investment risk, because it’s considered so politically unstable.” Canary Media describes how the cancellation of Revolution Wind will cost New England ratepayers, as the regional grid had been counting on the added supply of electricity. This is particularly true during winter, when natural-gas supplies run short in New England, but winds and the power they generate are the strongest.

The New York Times reports on the increasing scale and absurdity of Trump’s attack on offshore wind. There is now an inter-agency team of cabinet secretaries that is dreaming up crazy theories for why we can’t have offshore-wind turbines (gee, what a constructive use of their time). This includes Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who now professes concern about sea-based drone attacks coming through wind-turbine arrays, despite the U.S. military concluding that radar interference from rotating turbine blades can be mitigated. Burgum’s specious argument was critiqued by a retired Navy commander who now writes about energy: “If we’re at a point where undersea drones are operating within U.S. territorial waters, that would be an incredible intelligence and military failure.” And of course, HHS Secretary Kennedy has to get in on the action if nutty theories are involved. He is claiming that the electromagnetic fields around the undersea power cables that run to shore endanger people and whales. The experts note that these fields are the same strength as those from household appliances, but who cares about physics when you can get headlines that please the ‟Dear Leader”?

Grist describes the Trump Administration’s continuing abuse of emergency authority, this time to force an old polluting gas-fired power plant to stay open in Eddystone, Pennsylvania. The plant, a relic from the 1960s, has run only sporadically in recent years, in large part because it simply was not economical to operate consistently. The grid operator in the region had approved the shutdown but, one day before the scheduled shutdown, the DOE issued the ‟emergency order.” One critic notes: “They are concocting the emergency situation in order to justify keeping a dirty fossil plant online past its retirement date.” The Atlantic describes the danger of Trump using emergency powers in a variety of contexts.

Canary Media reports from the National Conservative Energy Summit, where a major theme is ‟the need for both the federal and local governments to remove increasingly high hurdles to building renewable energy.” “Conservatives can and should lead on energy,” said John Szoka, CEO of the Conservative Energy Network, in his opening remarks. Too bad the Trump Administration is so irrational and radical because, if they were truly conservative, they would be listening to these people.

< back to news+views