How Trump’s Energy Agenda Shapes Clean Technology and Affects Workers: An In-Depth Analysis

After Donald Trump pardoned those involved in the Capitol insurrection, he took more significant actions. He withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and stopped funding for President Biden’s infrastructure plans and the Inflation Reduction Act—money already approved by Congress.

Trump claims he wants to “unleash America’s energy potential,” which mainly focuses on oil and gas. While this might seem appealing, it could damage the U.S.’s long-term energy future and harm clean technology efforts.

His approach aims to boost domestic oil and gas supplies to reduce prices, especially as the demand for electricity rises with new technologies. The U.S. is already a top oil and gas producer, and energy decisions often stay within corporate boardrooms. Interestingly, in 2024, utilities invested heavily in renewables like wind and solar, which made up 94% of new energy capacity.

“In the last two years, we’ve put in over $130 billion for new factories for solar panels and batteries across the country,” said Robert Deans from the Natural Resources Defense Council. This growth reflects our capacity to meet the demand for solar energy and advance battery production.

Deans shared this insight during a virtual press event with the United States Energy Association. Last year saw $2.1 trillion invested in renewable energy globally. Additionally, many countries committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions through the Paris Agreement, aiming to tackle global warming’s harsh effects.

Not everyone agreed with Deans. Some panelists highlighted that U.S. energy policy should prioritize affordability and reliability. They argued that fossil fuels like coal and natural gas provide consistent energy, while renewables can only operate when conditions allow, necessitating backups like battery storage, which increases costs.

Tripling Renewables

Climate experts insist that to effectively address climate change, the U.S. must triple its renewable energy usage by 2030. If we delay, the costs, both economic and environmental, will only grow. The Inflation Reduction Act has triggered at least 210 green energy projects nationwide, potentially creating over 74,000 jobs and attracting $86.3 billion.

Natural disasters took a toll on the U.S. economy in 2024, costing around $217.8 billion, with hurricanes and wildfires to blame. Globally, insured losses reached $145 billion, according to Aon.

Lazard notes that renewable energy is currently the cheapest power source, with unsubsidized onshore wind topping the list, followed by utility-scale solar and natural gas. This is vital because fossil fuel-related health issues cost the U.S. around $820 billion annually, with the International Monetary Fund estimating fossil fuel pollution health costs between $2.9 trillion to $8.1 trillion each year.

“In the past 35 years, we’ve burned more fossil fuels than in all of history, raising atmospheric CO2 levels by 20%,” Deans pointed out. “We must transition to cleaner energy to protect communities and improve lives.

Trump has rolled back regulations on coal plants, benefiting coal-producing states. Still, Dan Brouillette, former Energy Secretary, emphasizes that utilities are committed to delivering reliable power while reducing their emissions. “They want to provide clean energy but also maintain 24/7 service.”

Energy’s Role In Global Economics

Brouillette also noted, “Looking back at history, many conflicts have stemmed from energy needs. Energy is essential in leadership and governance.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts a 10-15% rise in energy demand by 2030, mainly from new tech which relies heavily on stable energy sources. This growing demand could raise prices. Currently, natural gas accounts for 43% of U.S. electricity, while renewables contribute 20%, often working together to ensure consistent energy supply.

Many experts believe the best approach is a mix of energy sources—a comprehensive strategy. Scott Segal from Bracewell argued that the discussion about externalities extends beyond health and environmental costs to include the impacts on households struggling with high energy prices.

Segal’s research shows that communities near refineries often support their operation and expansion. “Local concerns are addressed during the permitting process,” he said.

However, Trump’s rejection of the Paris Agreement and climate change undermines a balanced energy strategy. His decision to stop funding for green energy and infrastructure projects initiated by Biden raises legal questions since he cannot unilaterally change laws.

Moreover, efforts to cut research funding for innovative energy technologies could hinder progress toward sustainable energy goals. The successes of shale gas and battery storage are linked to government investment in the early stages.

“Countries that thrive invest in their future. We need to prioritize this to ensure American businesses and workers succeed globally,” said Deans.

As the economy evolves, Congress recognizes the necessity of promoting green energy projects nationwide.

Also By This Author:

Natural Gas Backs Up Renewables — A Fact Trump Must Learn

Energy Companies Can Tip The Climate Debate

A Closer Look At Trump’s Energy Secretary

Can We Triple The Use of Renewable Energy?