During the latest marathon cabinet meeting on Dec. 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright made news when he told President Donald Trump that “The biggest determinant of the price of energy is politicians, political leaders, and polices — that’s what drives energy prices.”
He’s right about that, and it is why the back-and-forth struggle over federal energy and climate policy plays such a key role in America’s economy and society. Just 10 months into this second Trump presidency, the administration’s policies are already having a profound impact, both at home and abroad.
While the rapid expansion of AI datacenters over the past year is currently being blamed by many for driving up electric costs, power bills were skyrocketing long before that big tech boom began, driven in large part by the policies of the Obama and Biden administration designed to regulate and subsidize an energy transition into reality. As I’ve pointed out here in the past, driving up the costs of all forms of energy to encourage conservation is a central objective of the climate alarm-driven transition, and that part of the green agenda has been highly effective.
President Trump, Wright, and other key appointees like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin have moved aggressively throughout 2025 to repeal much of that onerous regulatory agenda. The GOP congressional majorities succeeded in phasing out Biden’s costly green energy subsidies as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law on July 4. As the federal regulatory structure eases and subsidy costs diminish, it is reasonable to expect a gradual easing of electricity and other energy prices.
This year’s fading out of public fear over climate change and its attendant fright narrative spells bad news for the climate alarm movement. The resulting cracks in the green facade have manifested rapidly in recent weeks.
Climate-focused conflict groups that rely on public fears to drive donations have fallen on hard times. According to a report in the New York Times, the Sierra Club has lost 60 percent of the membership it reported in 2019 and the group’s management team has fallen into infighting over elements of the group’s agenda. Greenpeace is struggling just to stay afloat after losing a huge court judgment for defaming pipeline company Energy Transfer during its efforts to stop the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
350.org, an advocacy group founded by Bill McKibben, shut down its U.S. operations in November amid funding woes that had forced planned 25 percent budget cuts for 2025 and 2026. Employees at EDF voted to form their own union after the group went through several rounds of budget cuts and layoffs in recent months.
The fading of climate fears in turn caused the ESG management and investing fad to also fall out of favor, leading to a flood of companies backtracking on green investments and climate commitments. The Net Zero Banking Alliance disbanded after most of America’s big banks – Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and others – chose to drop out of its membership.
The EV industry is also struggling. As the Trump White House moves to repeal Biden-era auto mileage requirements, Ford Motor Company is preparing to shut down production of its vaunted F-150 Lightning electric pickup, and Stellantis cancelled plans to roll out a full-size EV truck of its own. Overall EV sales in the U.S. collapsed in October and November following the repeal of the $7,500 per car IRA subsidy effective Sept 30.
The administration’s policy actions have already ended any new leasing for costly and unneeded offshore wind projects in federal waters and have forced the suspension or abandonment of several projects that were already moving ahead. Capital has continued to flow into the solar industry, but even that industry’s ability to expand seems likely to fade once the federal subsidies are fully repealed at the end of 2027.
Truly, public policy matters where energy is concerned. It drives corporate strategies, capital investments, resource development and movement, and ultimately influences the cost of energy in all its forms and products. The speed at which Trump and his key appointees have driven this principle home since Jan. 20 has been truly stunning.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
As Americans enjoy their freedom — as they have a God-given right to do — they drive where they want in privately owned cars (gas powered, hybrid, or electric), live comfortably in heated-and-air-conditioned homes, and spend their evenings cooking dinner on gas (or electric stoves), and watching whatever television program or sporting event they choose. All of it brought to them by virtue of abundant and affordable energy.
According to 2024 data published by the U.S. Department of Energy, 82.16 percent of the energy consumed in the United States came from fossil fuels, including coal, petroleum and natural gas. Another 8.67 percent came from nuclear power plants.
In other words, more than 90 percent of the energy used in this country last year came from these sources.
Only 1.64% came from windmills; and only 1.17 percent came from solar panels.
As this nation’s economy and population has grown, so too has its power needs. Since 1960, in fact, the consumption of energy produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power has more than doubled.
But the consumption of nuclear energy peaked in 2019 — and has stagnated since then — while facing a campaign of opposition from liberal environmental groups.
This is ironic, however, because as the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power increased in recent decades, greenhouse gas emissions declined. From 1990 to 2022, for example, fossil fuel consumption increased by 8.64 percent, according to the Department of Energy. But during that same period, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gas emissions declined by three percent.
Nonetheless, groups including the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the National Resources Defense Council have sought not merely to stop the growth of this type of energy production, but to roll it back. In theory, they would replace the production lost from nuclear power and fossil fuels with energy produced from “renewable sources,” including windmills and solar panels.
They are particularly opposed to the development of nuclear power — even though nuclear plants don’t emit greenhouse gases.
“The Sierra Club,” says its website, “continues to oppose construction of any new commercial nuclear fission power plants.”
350.org also opposes the construction of new nuclear plants. “New nuclear,” its website says, “is a dangerous distraction in the race to solve climate change.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argues that “expanding nuclear power is not a sound strategy for diversifying America’s energy portfolio and reducing carbon pollution.”
However, some progress has been made recently in resisting this campaign to foist renewable energy development upon the United States. In 2021, some of this nation’s largest banks — including Wells Fargo, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America — joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance. This alliance, said the Sierra Club’s magazine, “signaled a commitment by member institutions to develop voluntary targets that support a climate goal of 1.5C above preindustrial levels.” Since then, however, each of these banks has dropped out of the alliance.
Unfortunately, the ”renewables only” advocates have also achieved some victories in recent years.
Since 2001, the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign has supported the closing of more than 300 coal-fired power plants in this country. In 2021, construction of a liquid natural gas export terminal in Oregon was also canceled. Then, in 2023, a proposed gas-fired power plant in Connecticut was canceled, too. These groups also pressured California into nearly shutting down the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which provides 9% of the state’s electricity, before state energy commissioners voted to extend its operation to 2030.
The relentless campaign to force America away from fossil fuels and nuclear power and towards wind and solar is also driving America toward energy dependence on the People’s Republic of China.
The Heritage Foundation published a report last year by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Miles Pollard that showed how this is happening. “China has succeeded in dominating the world’s supply chains in green energy products and components,” it said. “If America continues to require the use of these green energy products, it will cede economic power to China, giving China control of American energy security.”
Limiting how we produce energy in the United States will, as a matter of course, impose limitations on our freedom. Reliance on China for our energy supply chain will make our country susceptible to economic coercion. Limiting how we produce energy, means less of it and fewer choices about how to use it. This is of course baked into the climate activists’ view of world, one where experts tell us we must drive EVs, use electric stoves, and eat less meat, so that even the smallest of life’s details are predecided.
To preserve freedom, we must unfetter ourselves from ideologically driven restrictions on fossil fuels and overcome decades of naysaying about nuclear power. In so doing we can ensure a future where abundant affordable energy gives every American real choice, which is the heart of freedom.
