Energy
The Compelling Case for Clean Energy Subsidies
There’s a solid economic case for government support
Tax credits and direct subsidies sound like handouts. That’s not true in the case of renewable energy and electric vehicles. No should feel bashful in advocating for these subsidies. They provide very real benefits to society, not just to the shareholders in a few firms. Tax credits and subsidies. like those that were contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, will help us avoid many billions of dollars a year of harm to our environment and health. They will also make America competitive in what are clearly the industries of the future, rather than abandoning the field to China.
CONTINUE READINGGas Pains
Higher gas prices are inflicting real pain on lower-income families.
Commentators seem bemused by the intense political reaction to gasoline prices, which are up by about a dollar a gallon due to the war. No doubt the reaction is accentuated because gas prices are highly visible. People buy gas frequently and even more frequently see signs posting the prices. But to a greater extent than many in the upper income distribution appreciate, the actual economic pain is very real. Current price increases presumably won’t be permanent, but the problem isn’t going to go away quickly and might well get worse.
CONTINUE READINGToo Cheap to Meter?
Unlimited energy abundance is more of a pipe dream than a realistic policy goal.
A recent post by Matt Yglesias on on “the case for clean energy abundance” disturbingly off pitch. One reason is that the post seems unduly dismissive of environmental harms. It pooh-poohs objections to a proposed ultra-large solar that would destroy what Yglesias describes as a “bunch of forest.” Maybe this would be warranted, but it’s not wrong to consider the environmental cost. Yglesias also opposes efforts to restrict fossil fuel production. This is partly on political grounds, because it makes it hard for Democrats to win in places like Louisiana, and partly because he doesn’t think those efforts accomplish much anyway. Yglesias could be right about the benefits of this hands-off approach, to regulating fossil fuels but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of the harm to public health and the environment. Instead, he describes the only problem with coal as being “smoggy,” which underplays coal’s serious public health and environmental harms.
CONTINUE READINGHow Trump Is Boosting Clean Energy Everywhere Else
It’s partly the Iran war. But there’s also another reason.
One of the winners from Trump’s presidency has been the clean energy industry. He’s had some success in his U.S. campaign to slow clean tech, but the global picture is quite different. If anything, Trump is boosting the energy transition outside the United States. We are still the world’s largest economy, but we’re only 15% of global GDP (measured by purchasing power parity). The rest of the world no longer dances to our tune.
The Iran War has been Trump’s most notable contribution to the global energy transition. Chinese solar exports doubled in a single month, an incredible surge. The war has been a sobering lessen to many countries about the dangers of relying on fossil fuels.
The Other Half of Climate: Policy, Capital, and the Race to Scale Superpollutant Solutions
Learn how California is using satellite data to pull the emergency brake on global warming.
Methane and other short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) are responsible for nearly half of today’s net global warming. Because they exit the atmosphere quickly, reducing them can serve as an ‘emergency brake’ on rising temperatures. At the San Francisco Climate Week, UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and the Institute for Governance …
CONTINUE READINGThe 2026 Election and the Environment
Trump will still be able to take a lot of anti-environmental actions. But not as many as today.
I published a post a week ago about prospects for the upcoming 2026 elections. I didn’t say much, however, about why the results will matter for the environment. No matter what happens electorally, Trump will still be in the White House and able to use executive powers to favor fossil fuels and bulldoze environmental protections. Nevertheless, the elections could still make a real difference in environmental terms. Even just taking the House would matter, but there are additional potential environmental gains if there are power shifts in the Senate or governorships.
The best way to understand the shifts is probably to look at what Trump has been able to do with the support of Congress and then consider how the situation would shift if Democrats take one or both Houses.
Building Bridges Over Troubled Waters
There are environmental issues that span the partisan divide, even today.
It turns out that the solar industry has two allies in unlikely places: Trump stalwarts Kellyanne Conway and Katie Miller (the wife of Stephen Miller). This is a reminder that, even in an era of hyper-partisanship, it is sometimes possible to create alliances across the ideological gulf.Despite polarization, there are some environmental issues that can bridge the partisan gap. T Some issues, like climate change, have become deeply polarizing. We shouldn’t give up on those, but we should also pay attention to issues that have greater potential for reaching out to Trump supporters.
How to Flip the Script for a Real Fossil Fuel Phaseout
The First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels should look to the Montreal Protocol for a model.
More than 50 governments are gathered in Colombia this week to design a roadmap to phase out oil, gas and coal. This aim, repeatedly proposed in UN climate conferences, has never seriously been pursued. Current fuel market shocks give it new urgency beyond climate change. The Santa Marta conference provides a promising platform to start …
Continue reading “How to Flip the Script for a Real Fossil Fuel Phaseout”
CONTINUE READINGAn Encouraging Signal About Federal Preemption
A new Supreme Court ruling should help states defend their climate laws.
The Trump Administration and its allies are attacking state climate laws with challenges based on preemption, arguing that federal law trumps state powers. A new Supreme Court ruling signals that the Court respects state prerogatives and isn’t willing to find preemption without a clear basis in a federal statute. Although the facts of the case are remote from environmental law, the Court’s attitude toward preemption has broader relevance.
CONTINUE READINGBending Under Pressure
Every now and then, the Trump Administration shows signs of reluctantly giving in to reality.
The Trump Administration’s basic stance has been to pursue ideological purity all costs, beginning with the “shock and awe” campaign of the first year. Don’t expect miracles, but there are at least a few signs that the Administration is tempering that strategy. It’s a bit comforting to see indications that reality is slowly sinking in. It’s also evidence that resistance to Trump policies isn’t futile.
Any trend toward saner policies is likely to be very limited. For instance, Trump and his supporters are too invested in climate denial to ever admit that climate change is a serious problem. The best we might hope for is that they ease up just a little on their war against clean energy. There are at least some hints that this may be starting to happen.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
