Published on: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 14:11:00 GMT
Original Story: ‘He’s forcing higher bills’: Trump spends billions to kill clean energy and keep coal alive – The Guardian

Trump’s Energy Plan: Back to Black.

Alright, settle in, buttercups. We’re here to talk about energy, specifically the kind that makes your eyes water, your lungs wheeze, and your wallet significantly lighter. Because, apparently, nothing says “Make America Great Again” quite like propping up a dying industry with billions in taxpayer dollars while simultaneously stomping all over cheaper, cleaner alternatives. The news, courtesy of The Guardian, tells us straight up: Donald J. Trump is spending billions to kill clean energy and keep coal, that venerable relic, gasping for air. And guess what? He’s “forcing higher bills.” Shocking, truly.

Look, I’ve seen enough corporate synergy memos to last three lifetimes, but even I’m struggling to find the “win” here for anyone not directly invested in a coal mine or a health insurance company bracing for a surge in respiratory illnesses. It’s a masterclass in economic inefficiency disguised as patriotic fervor. The sheer audacity of it, honestly. We’re talking about actively reversing progress, not just stalling it, but slamming the car into reverse and flooring it, all while yelling “Freedom!” out the window. Freedom to pay more for dirtier air, I suppose.

The “Clean” Energy Boondoggle (or Lack Thereof)

Let’s be clear: we’re not just talking about a mild preference for fossil fuels here. We’re discussing a full-blown, ideological crusade against anything that remotely smells like “renewable” or “sustainable.” The Trump administration, in its infinite wisdom, has systematically worked to dismantle policies, regulations, and incentives that actually, you know, encourage cleaner energy. It’s like watching someone intentionally set fire to their own house because they prefer the smell of smoke to fresh air.

How does one “spend billions to kill clean energy”? Oh, it’s a multi-pronged assault, really. We’re talking about tax breaks and subsidies disproportionately favoring fossil fuel companies. We’re talking about rolling back environmental regulations that mandate cleaner emissions or protect sensitive ecosystems from resource extraction. We’re talking about defunding federal programs designed to research and implement renewable technologies. It’s not just passively letting clean energy falter; it’s actively pulling the plug, kicking it while it’s down, and then pouring lighter fluid on it just for good measure. All of which, by the way, comes with a price tag – a price tag you, dear taxpayer, are footing. Because nothing says fiscal conservatism like throwing money at a losing proposition to make a political point.

A Blast From the Soot-Filled Past: The Coal Crusade

Ah, coal. The black gold that powered the Industrial Revolution and still, inexplicably, holds a vice grip on certain political imaginations. Despite market forces pushing electricity generation overwhelmingly towards cheaper natural gas and increasingly cost-effective renewables, the narrative from the Trump camp has always been about “saving coal jobs.” It’s a noble sentiment, sure, if you ignore the fact that the industry has been in decline for decades due to automation, dwindling demand, and, well, the fact that burning coal is objectively terrible for the environment and public health.

This isn’t about economic viability; it’s about symbolism. It’s a dog whistle to a specific segment of the electorate, a promise to turn back the clock to an era that, frankly, never truly existed in the idyllic form it’s painted. The “billions” spent aren’t magically making coal competitive again. They’re artificially propping up an industry, distorting the market, and ultimately ensuring that the energy grid remains reliant on a dirtier, more expensive power source than it needs to be. It’s less “energy independence” and more “energy dependence on yesterday’s tech, because feelings.”

Who Pays the Piper? Hint: It’s You.

This is where the rubber meets the road, or more accurately, where your hard-earned cash meets the furnace. When the government actively discourages cheaper, more efficient energy sources and subsidizes more expensive, less efficient ones, guess what happens to your utility bill? Spoiler alert: it goes up. It’s not rocket science; it’s basic economics, something that seems to get conveniently forgotten when political points are on the table.

Clean energy, especially solar and wind, has seen massive cost reductions over the past decade. Investing in these areas not only creates new jobs in a growing sector but also offers lower operational costs and, consequently, lower electricity prices for consumers in the long run. By actively undermining this, the Trump administration isn’t just making a policy choice; it’s making a choice to siphon money out of your pocket and into the coffers of an industry that, let’s be frank, is on its way out. Oh, and let’s not forget the long-term environmental and health costs, which, of course, aren’t itemized on your monthly power bill but will absolutely be paid for, one way or another.

The Convenient Memory Hole: A Flip-Flop of Epic Proportions

Now, here’s where it gets truly delicious. For all the unwavering, rock-solid commitment to coal and fossil fuels we’ve seen from Donald Trump since his presidential campaigns began, it wasn’t always this way. Oh no, friends. Cast your minds back to 2009. Yes, 2009, a simpler time, before “alternative facts” were a thing and “covfefe” was just a typo. In that distant past, a full-page ad ran in The New York Times. It was a letter to then-President Barack Obama, urging him to “demand a climate agreement in Copenhagen that will establish a carbon emissions program.” And among the signatories? None other than Donald J. Trump.

Let that sink in. The man who later pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, who repeatedly called climate change a “hoax,” and who is now actively spending billions to prop up coal, once advocated for a carbon emissions program. He was, by all accounts, on board with taking action on climate change. It’s like finding out your vegan friend used to be a butcher. What changed? Was it a genuine change of heart, a sudden epiphany that greenhouse gases are actually good for us? Or was it, perhaps, the shifting political winds, the realization that an anti-climate stance played better with a certain segment of the conservative base he was looking to rally?

The Inconvenient Truths of Energy Policy

The global energy landscape has shifted dramatically. Renewables are no longer a fringe science experiment; they are mainstream, economically competitive, and increasingly the default choice for new power generation capacity worldwide. Countries like China and India, often cited as excuses for U.S. inaction, are heavily investing in clean energy. The notion that the U.S. can somehow buck this trend, or that it’s economically prudent to do so by force-feeding life support to a dying industry, is not just short-sighted; it’s bordering on delusional. It leaves the country lagging in innovation, reliant on volatile fossil fuel markets, and facing higher energy costs than necessary.

Project 2025’s Shadowy Glow (of Incandescent Bulbs)

This specific push to undermine clean energy and bolster fossil fuels isn’t an isolated incident; it slots neatly into the broader framework of Project 2025, that delightful blueprint for a second Trump administration. Among its stated goals are the dismantling of environmental agencies, the rollback of regulations, and a general gutting of any governmental body that might dare to suggest that industry should, you know, *not* pollute our air and water with reckless abandon. So, this isn’t just about energy; it’s about a systematic effort to remove any checks and balances on corporate power, especially in sectors deemed vital for “American dominance,” even if that dominance is built on a foundation of soot and ever-increasing household expenses.

The drive to “kill clean energy” is less about making America great and more about satisfying specific corporate interests and a particular ideological bent, regardless of the cost to the environment, public health, or, most ironically, the American consumer’s pocketbook. It’s a tragicomic play, really, starring a protagonist who can’t seem to remember his lines from a decade ago, and a supporting cast of taxpayers who are, unwittingly, funding the entire production.