Wednesday, June 03, 2026

Trump’s Anti-Greentech Counter-Revolution

Source: Labor Network for Sustainability

President Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBBA) into law on July 4, 2025. The law rolls back many parts of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act by ending tax credits for wind and solar energy, removing incentives for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency, and increasing support for fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and traditional agriculture. Photo credit: The White House, Public Domain

The Greentech revolution includes ways of producing energy like solar and wind power; ways of distributing it in time and space like energy storage and energy grids; and ways of using it like electric vehicles (EVs) and carbon neutral buildings. The Greentech revolution is a dagger pointed at the heart of the fossil fuel industry and the political, social, and economic ecosystem in which it is embedded. Donald Trump, MAGA, and the fossil fuel industry are conducting a systematic counter-revolution to halt and destroy the Greentech revolution in all its forms.

The roots of opposition to climate protection and fossil free energy in particular run deep. The fossil fuel industry has spent large sums trying to debunk the reality of climate change and fossil fuel burning as its leading cause. Political forces – left, right, and center — have long seen the expansion of fossil fuel extraction and burning as a key to prosperity and national power. With the rise of fascist-style movements, parties, and governments around the world, denial of climate change and attacks on climate protection became ubiquitous, promulgated by forces far beyond the fossil fuel interests. Trump’s anti-Greentech campaign is backed by an army of economic and ideological allies who are attempting to block the Greentech revolution at every level, from municipalities and states to corporations and the public mind.

While Donald Trump vacillates on many fronts, his personal climate denialism and hostility to fossil free energy have been consistent for much of his career. In his first term, Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris climate change agreement; authorized leasing federal land for new coal mines; unblocked nearly the entire American continental shelf for offshore drilling; and opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and national monuments such as Bears Ears in Utah to fossil fuel extraction. By the end of 2018, Trump had eliminated 76 environmental regulations, most related to climate.

The second Trump administration represented a new phase in the attack on climate safety and fossil free energy. Of course, like most presidents before him, Trump is trying to increase fossil fuel extraction and burning. But beyond that he is trying to restrict and if possible, abolish Greentech industry. Trump portrays his energy policy as a search for energy dominance for the US. But the facts belie that claim. In fact, Trump’s efforts to destroy Greentech energy are systematically reducing America’s energy resources and thereby decreasing US power.

Trump’s intent is not primarily to augment US power, but to reverse the Greentech revolution and the global transition to fossil-free energy. It is first and foremost devoted to eliminating the existential threat that the Greentech revolution poses to the fossil fuel industry and the entire economic, political, and social ecosystem that depends on it and on which it depends. If the Greentech revolution is a dagger pointed at their heart, then it is a matter of survival for these forces to attempt in turn to stab it to death. That is the attempt we are seeing from MAGA, the Trump administration, and their allies.

(Left to Right) Chris Wright, U.S. Secretary of Energy (Photo credit: Donica Payne, United States Department of Energy, Public Domain); Jessica Kramer, head of the EPA’s Office of Water (Photo credit: Congress.gov, Public Domain); Audrey Robertson, head of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Photo credit: Energy.gov, Public Domain)

While Trump often seems to be flying wild, it would be a mistake to think that his administration doesn’t know what it is doing. Its key energy and climate related positions are held by top fossil fuel executives and lobbyists who are well aware of the Greentech threat to their industry. Trump’s energy secretary Chris Wright is a longtime fossil fuel executive and a former director of an oil-industry lobbying group. Jessica Kramer, head of the EPA’s Office of Water, previously represented major energy companies, mining companies, and a water trade group working against regulations under the Clean Water Act. Audrey Robertson, head of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, was the co-founder of fracking company Franklin Mountain Energy and served on the board of three other fossil fuel companies, including Liberty Energy, founded by Energy Secretary Chris Wright. As Matthew Davis of the League of Conservation Voters put it, “Nominating another oil and gas executive continues the Trump administration’s actions to effectively ban clean energy like wind and solar, and advance dirty energy only policies across the board.”

On day one of his presidency, Trump issued an Executive Order freezing unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It aimed to halt every form of Greentech, from production of solar and wind energy to domestic manufacture of EVs. In February 2025, the Army Corps of Engineers halted approval of renewable energy projects on private land; out of about 11,000 pending permits it singled out the 168 that focused on renewable energy. In March, Trump signed an executive order rescinding a Biden-era proclamation permitting the Department of Energy to fund production of renewable technologies through the Defense Production Act.

There followed a series of actions specifically designed to block solar and wind energy production. The Treasury Department issued new guidance limiting wind and solar energy projects’ eligibility for federal tax credits. Then the Interior Department issued a new “project density” policy requiring wind and solar energy projects on federal land to match the energy output per acre of fossil fuels, disqualifying many renewable projects from receiving permits. In June, Trump signed an executive order directing the Treasury to severely restrict the eligibility of wind and solar projects to qualify for tax credits. According to Bloomberg NEF, the removal of federal subsidies means that over the next five years new wind energy will be 50% lower and new solar energy 23% lower than previously projected.

The attack on Greentech energy mobilized departments across the government and obscure opportunities for bureaucratic obstruction. On August 7, the New York Times reported,

“The Trump administration has sharply escalated its attacks on wind and solar power in recent days, issuing a barrage of policies that could halt the construction of renewable energy projects on public and private lands across the country. The Interior Department is now requiring dozens of formerly routine consultations and approvals for wind and solar projects to undergo new layers of political review by the interior secretary’s office, a policy that is causing significant permitting delays. The agency is also opening investigations into bird deaths caused by wind farms and withdrawing millions of acres of federal waters previously available for leasing by offshore wind companies.

At the same time, the Transportation Department is recommending minimum setback requirements for wind farms near federal highways and railroads, requiring them to be placed 1.2 miles away. And it ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to re-evaluate whether wind farms pose a danger to aviation, a potentially momentous step since nearly every wind farm in the country requires height clearance approvals from the agency. Taken together, the policies amount to a far-reaching crackdown on wind and solar power.”

Bureaucratic obstruction has become ubiquitous for solar projects. Late in 2025, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) revealed that more than 500 solar projects in the pipeline across the country are in danger of delays or cancellation “as a result of political attacks.” One planned solar facility on private land in the Upper Midwest is currently delayed because federal agencies have halted all discussions over a needed water permit. Another large solar farm on private land in the West is being held up because it must now undergo three layers of political review.


Donald Trump’s well-known personal antagonism to wind power goes back to the time he unsuccessfully tried to stop an offshore wind farm from being built in view of one of his Scottish golf courses. On a recent trip to Scotland, he called wind turbines “ugly monsters” that “destroy the beauty of your fields, your plains and your waterways.” On inauguration day, he issued a sweeping executive order halting all leasing for new wind farms on federal lands and waters. On July 30, the Interior Department revoked over 3.5 million acres of federal waters previously designated for offshore wind development, effectively eliminating federal offshore wind leasing. Then the Trump administration ordered a halt to Revolution Wind, a nearly-completed wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island.

But that was just a love tap. Just before Christmas, the Trump administration announced that it would “pause” leases for five East Coast wind farms, “essentially gutting the country’s nascent offshore wind industry.” Together the projects were expected to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses across the Eastern United States. The reason given was national security concerns, but those concerns were never stated. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement that “the prime duty of the United States government is to protect the American people.” He said the decision “addresses emerging national security risks” as well as “vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our East Coast population centers.” Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman described Trump’s wind policy as “an effort to shut down 10 percent of U.S. electricity production — even as electricity prices are soaring.”

The overall objective of the Trump administration is clear – to reverse the Greentech revolution. As the New York Times summed up with considerable understatement, “Instead of simply lifting restrictions on fossil-fuel development and removing subsidies for renewable energy, the Trump administration is creating new roadblocks for wind and solar projects.”

CATL batteries power many electric vehicles in China and internationally. Photo Credit: Matti Blume, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0.

Trump’s attack on Greentech does not just aim to dismantle fossil free energy; it also aims to undermine the innovations that are making energy consumption greener and more efficient.

The rapid development of energy storage technology has been central to the Greentech revolution. Trump has taken direct aim at the attempt to develop a domestic battery industry in the US.

In 2024, China made 99 percent of the world’s lithium phosphate cells, the kind most often used for energy storage. It also made more than 90 percent of the main battery components like cathodes and anodes and dominated the refining of raw materials like lithium and graphite. Batteries are essential not only for Greentech, but also to provide electricity for AI and to manufacture drones and other weapons of modern warfare.


Soon after coming into office, President Trump froze billions of dollars in Biden-era federal grants for battery manufacturing. His animus to anything he associated with Greentech was such that he lumped batteries in with electric vehicles, solar farms, wind turbines, and other clean energy technologies, notwithstanding their critical role in both military and industrial production. He boasted that by ending the “Green New Scam” his budget cancelled over $15 billion in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act “Green New Deal” funds. That included ending “taxpayer handouts to electric vehicle and battery makers” and canceling $6 billion in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds for “wasteful and ineffective EV charger programs.” So much for an energy policy purported to increase America’s power!

The attack on Greentech also includes blocking transmission lines for renewable energy. For example, the Department of Energy had granted a conditional loan guarantee for an $11 billion transmission line in the Midwest, known as the Grain Belt Express, which would transport electricity generated by wind farms in Kansas to more densely populated regions in Indiana and Illinois. It would have been the largest privately funded transmission line in the country’s history. In July, the DOE cancelled the loan guarantee, halting the project just as it was ready to begin construction.

A particular objective of the war on Greentech consumption is the multifaceted destruction of the electric vehicle industry. Less than a month after Trump’s inauguration, a Transportation Department memo ordered the suspension of $5 billion in federal funding, authorized by Congress under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, for states to build electric vehicle chargers. The budget proposed by congressional Republicans eliminated tax credits of up to $7,500 for electric vehicle buyers, clawed back money for fast chargers, and phased out subsidies for companies that set up battery factories and lithium mines. According to the New York Times, “Killing those programs would endanger more than $200 billion that auto companies, battery makers, mining companies and others have invested to create a U.S. electric vehicle supply chain not dependent on China.” In December, Trump reduced the average gas milage automakers are required to achieve by 3031from 50 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon and thereby, as the New York Times wrote, “threw the weight of the federal government behind vehicles that burn gasoline rather than electric cars.”

Listen to This on Youtube

The attack on Greentech went into many corners of energy production and consumption. For example, agrivoltaics, which combine energy production with agriculture, is an emerging form of Greentech. the US Department of Agriculture issued a report calling for disincentivizing solar development on farms. It then announced that it will stop funding wind and solar energy on farmland.

The Trump administration has particularly targeted Green New Deal-style programs that combine Greentech and social justice goals. For example, in its first month in office, Trump’s EPA halted $7 billion in contractually obligated grants for Solar For All, an Inflation Reduction Act program that delivered clean energy and lower prices to vulnerable communities. Arizona attorney general Kris Mayes, who sued to block cancellation of the program, said it would affect 900,000 low-income households nationwide; 11,000 low-income households in Arizona would face a 20% spike in energy bills. And in June the Department of Agriculture announced the termination of $148.6 million in federal grants related to environmental justice and DEI, including funds for disadvantaged farmers using conservation practices.

Trump has not limited his anti-Greentech counterrevolution to the domestic economy; he has also taken it global. Early in the administration Energy Secretary Wright told an international conference that net zero carbon emissions was a “sinister goal” and criticized a British law to reach net zero by 2050. In his first month as president, Trump ordered tariffs against trading partners, “with severe implications for the supply chains for wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles.” Then Trump used tariff threats to demand that US exports be exempt from the EU law requiring that importers report on the carbon footprint of their factories overseas and pay a fine for each unit of carbon emitted before the product gets to the EU. The Trump administration demanded that the EU exempt US companies from a law that requires them to monitor and report methane emissions and to repair methane leaks in their facilities. More recently, the US has demanded that the EU cut back or repeal its new “corporate sustainability due diligence directive” which provides substantial fines for companies exporting gas to the EU unless they show they protect human rights and are cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Gas prices in Sonoma, California April 7 2026. Photo credit: Sarah Stierch, Flickr, CC0 1.0.

Even as Trump’s war on Iran initiated the most severe energy crisis in world history, he continued his war on fossil free energy well into 2026. Consider these examples from April alone:

  • Trump released his 2027 budget request proposing tens of billions of dollars in cuts to energy and environmental programs, including everything from electric vehicle chargers to prosecution of environmental crimes. At the same time, he proposed increased funding for oil and gas production, mining, manufacturing, and AI development. A White House fact sheet titled “Ending the New Green Scam” said, “President Trump is committed to eliminating funding for the globalist climate agenda while unleashing American energy production.”
  • When several federal judges overruled Trump’s blockage of offshore wind farms, Trump did the almost unimaginable and paid roughly $1.8 billion to companies to abandon leases for four offshore wind farms in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
  • The US “Department of War” began blocking more than 150 onshore wind farms across the United States by delaying military reviews that were once considered routine. According to Jason Grumet, chief executive of the American Clean Power Association, “The Department of War is currently making it almost impossible to build a new wind project in the United States.” Trump had stated in January that “My goal is to not let any windmill be built.”
  • And Donald Trump released a series of memos that doubled down on his support of increased domestic fossil fuel production for purported “defense readiness.” The memos said US-based oil, coal, and natural gas production must expand “to avert an industrial resource or critical technology item shortfall that would severely impair national defense capability.” Invoking the Defense Production Act, the memos authorized “making necessary purchases, commitments, and financial instruments to enable these projects.”

The Greentech revolution can provide enormous benefits to the American people. The US system of fossil fuel energy production and consumption is, conversely, a dead man walking. Trump, MAGA, and the fossil fuel industry are making extraordinary efforts to keep fossil fuels alive by destroying all Greentech alternatives. But, as we will see in subsequent commentaries in this series, this fossil fuel counter-revolution is bound to fail.


This article was originally published by Labor Network for Sustainability; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.Email
avatar

Jeremy Brecher is a historian, author, and co-founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability. He has been active in peace, labor, environmental, and other social movements for more than half a century. Brecher is the author of more than a dozen books on labor and social movements, including Strike! and Global Village or Global Pillage and the winner of five regional Emmy awards for his documentary movie work.



 

Source: Truthout

The evidence for rapid human-caused climate change keeps piling up, yet the world continues to flood the atmosphere with greenhouse gases amid a political backlash against the struggle for a future free of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, which means humans are continuing to make the climate crisis worse. Global average temperatures are expected to stay at record levels for the 2026-2030 period, exceeding preindustrial averages by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. As global warming speeds up, events like wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and floods will become more intense, and there will be a substantial increase in premature deaths, with the overwhelming majority occurring in low-and middle-income countries. The climate crisis presents a grave threat to life on Earth, although scientists have now scrapped the worst-case climate scenario on account of the expansion of renewable energy — which means there is still hope.

In the interview that follows, world-renowned economist Robert Pollin talks about the forces resisting green transition and highlights the results of a major study he and some of his co-workers at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) produced for advancing a green transition in Michigan. According to Pollin, there are simply no technical or economic considerations preventing Michigan and other U.S. states from achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Pollin is distinguished professor of economics and co-director of PERI at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

C. J. Polychroniou: Over the past few years, we have observed the climate crisis taking a back seat to geopolitical conflicts and wars, but also to immediate economic concerns such as inflation. Indeed, climate action is colliding with political and economic realities and, subsequently, climate change is no longer a top issue in the international policy agenda. Moreover, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has called the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) net zero modeling “ridiculous” and European leaders themselves are also divided over the pace of the green transition. Why would a green transition be fueling backlash, and what might be the consequences of more inaction on climate change?

Robert Pollin: By far, the largest factor driving the global climate crisis is the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas to produce energy. This is because burning fossil fuels to produce energy generates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In turn, the accumulated stock of CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary source of rising average global temperatures.

Once we start from these straightforward facts, it becomes obvious as to why there is a global pushback against a green transition project. While burning fossil fuels to produce energy is driving the climate crisis, it is also delivering gigantic profits for fossil fuel corporations. A recent Oxfam study projects 2026 profits for the six largest fossil fuel corporations — Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and TotalEnergies — to reach $94 billion. These companies and their shareholders are not about to surrender $94 billion without a fight. Such cash piles also make it easy to buy off politicians. Donald Trump leads the pack here, such as with his ridiculous pronouncement last September before the UN General Assembly that the climate crisis is “the greatest con job in history.”

But it’s not just greedy corporations and corrupt politicians who resist the green transition. Not surprisingly and with good reason, it also includes a fair share of working people whose livelihoods are tied to the fossil fuel industry as well as governments which depend on fossil fuel tax revenues to finance their social spending. For example, the state of New Mexico finances nearly half of its entire state budget through oil and gas tax revenues. Figuring out alternative funding sources to pay New Mexico’s public school teachers and health care workers is not obvious.

Of course, none of this means that giving up on the green transition is an option. The reality of the climate crisis doesn’t just go away. A widely reported recent study did lower its high-end forecast of the extent of global warming up to the year 2100, from 5.0 degrees to 3.5 degrees Celsius (C) above preindustrial levels — 9.0degrees to 6.3degrees Fahrenheit (F). But let’s put this new estimate in context. To date, the extent of global warming is at 1.4 degrees C (2.5 degrees F) — i.e., nowhere close to an increase of 3.5 degrees C, much less of 5 degrees C. The severe consequences of this 1.4degrees C of global warming are before our eyes. Average daily high temperatures this past April in New Delhi, a metropolitan area of 35 million people, were 109degrees F (43 degrees C). This past May, a major heat wave broke temperature records across northwest Europe, triggering water shortages in the U.K. and causing several deaths in France.

You are the lead author of a new and massive study on how the state of Michigan may become carbon neutral by 2050. What are the challenges facing Michigan in phasing out oil, coal, and natural gas as the state’s main source of energy, and what are the primary renewable energy sources that will secure a green transition?

In a 2022 report from Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) called the MI Healthy Climate Plan, the state established, as its central climate target, for Michigan to achieve carbon neutrality — i.e., net zero emissions — by 2050. Reaching zero emissions in Michigan by 2050 is a realistic target as long as the state maintains its commitment to achieve it. As a starting point, it is a major statement in itself that the state government set this emissions reduction target and is actually still taking it seriously. This isn’t easy under Trump 2.0.

At present, about 85 percent of all energy consumed in Michigan’s economy comes from burning oil, coal and natural gas. The challenge is obvious: how to go from 85 percent dependence on fossil fuel energy sources as of now to zero, or near zero, fossil fuel consumption in 24 years.

Our study works out a plan to accomplish this. The central feature of our plan is to build a clean energy infrastructure to supplant the existing fossil fuel–dominant infrastructure. Solar and wind power will be the state’s primary new energy sources, operating at a greatly upgraded level of energy efficiency. Geothermal and low-emissions bioenergy will be supplemental renewable sources. Michigan will also need to create large-scale battery storage capacity to account for the fact that solar and wind are intermittent energy sources — i.e., the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow all day everywhere.

We estimate that the costs of these clean energy investments — including all renewables, efficiency upgrades, and battery storage — at about 2 percent of Michigan’s overall spending (GDP) per year every year between now and 2050. For 2027, this total spending would amount to about $15 billion. That’s obviously real money. But it is still only 2 percent of total spending in Michigan. That means that 98 percent of spending in the state can still go to everything else besides its green transition project.

It is also critical to emphasize that, according to our estimates, these clean energy investments will generate an average of between 85,0000-100,000 jobs per year between 2027-2050 within Michigan, equal to about 2 percent of Michigan’s current workforce. These will include jobs across all occupations in the state, including, for example, roofers, machinists, accountants, office managers and assistants, truck drivers, and wind turbine engineers. This level of job creation will continue as long as the state continues to invest 2 percent of its GDP on clean energy projects.

A major component of the study revolves around a just transition for fossil fuel workers. While from the climate justice perspective a just transition for underrepresented and vulnerable communities is seen as an important issue, some may wonder why a transition for fossil fuel workers is also made to be such a big issue. Is a comprehensive just transition possible and financially viable?

As I noted above, if we are proposing to eliminate the fossil fuel industry as the first imperative for a green transition project, it follows that we are equally proposing to eliminate all the jobs for workers now employed in the fossil fuel industry. Without generous transitional support, these workers, and the communities in which they live, are facing potentially huge losses in their economic security and living standards.

A just transition program for these workers therefore has to be a first-order priority of the overall green transition project, as the late, great labor and environmental leader Tony Mazzocchi first emphasized decades ago. This is a matter of simple economic justice. But without a generous just transition program fully embedded in the green transition project, it is also fair to expect that a large share of the workers and communities staring at major losses in their living standards will become green transition opponents. They then become fertile targets for exactly the type of brazen political opportunism practiced by Trump and company. Trump, for example, recently anointed himself the champion of the miners in “America’s beautiful clean coal industry.”

In Michigan, there are now about 21,000 people employed in the full range of fossil fuel-based industries, amounting to only 0.5 percent of the state’s current workforce. Virtually all of these jobs will be phased out between now and 2050 under the statewide green transition. If we assume that the phase-out proceeds in more or less steady increments between 2026 and 2050, and we also take account of workers voluntarily retiring over the next 25 years, we end up with only about 350 workers getting laid off every year. This compares with our lower-end estimate that about 85,000 jobs will be created in Michigan as long as the state invests 2 percent of GDP per year on clean energy projects.

Still, each of the 350 workers who will be displaced every year needs to receive generous transitional support. This should include pension guarantees, guaranteed re-employment at their previous pay levels, as well as job retraining and relocation support as needed. We estimate that a generous transitional support package for all these workers would cost about $45 million per year. That is less than 0.01 percent of overall 2025 statewide spending in Michigan.

Of course, the impact of the fossil fuel industry phase out will be much greater in states where fossil fuel activity is more prominent. But even for a heavily fossil fuel dependent state such as West Virginia, we estimated in a previous study that the costs of a generous just transition program would still be only about 0.2 percent of overall statewide spending.

For Michigan, an additional major concern is the impact on employment of automobile manufacturing transitioning from building internal combustion engine powered autos to battery electric vehicles (EVs). As of 2025, total auto manufacturing employment in Michigan was about 49,000 jobs, i.e., more than double the employment level for all fossil fuel sector jobs in the state. It is possible that this transition to EV manufacturing could expand employment levels and improve conditions for auto workers within Michigan. But whether this happens will depend on the effectiveness of industrial policies to locate EV manufacturing operations, battery production in particular, within Michigan. More broadly, these trends demonstrate the imperative of a commitment to full employment policies, along with rising wages and expanded benefits, as a centerpiece of a U.S. economy-wide Green New Deal.

How realistic is it, given the present political climate political, that Michigan and other U.S. states will be able to implement climate stabilization programs and become carbon neutral by 2050?

In terms of purely technical and economic considerations, it is entirely realistic for Michigan and other states to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. But as discussed above, there is no getting around that the opposition is formidable, especially coming from the fossil fuel corporations and their bought politicians. Still, it stands as one significant counterforce to this opposition that the Michigan state government remains committed to its carbon neutrality project.

More generally, a range of other developments are working to strengthen the ongoing global green transition project, even amid Trump 2.0. Thus, an April 2025 report by Trump’s own Energy Department estimates that by 2030, solar and wind power will generate a kilowatt of electricity at between 3.0 and 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour. This is less than half the cost of natural gas plants, at 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Similarly, a December 2025 article published in Canary Media was titled “The year that Trump tried and failed to stop clean energy.” The article reports that “through November, a whopping 92% of all new electricity capacity built in the U.S. came in the form of solar, batteries, and wind power. Electric vehicles hit a record too.” The clean energy transition is advancing still more rapidly outside the United States. Science magazine pronounced that “The seemingly unstoppable growth of renewable energy is Science’s 2025 breakthrough of the year.” Among other developments, Science reported that “solar panel imports in Africa and South Asia have soared, as people in those regions realized rooftop solar can cheaply power lights, cellphones, and fans.” As one further critical indicator, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that for 2025, worldwide investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, electric grid and battery storage reached over $2 trillion. This figure was nearly twice the $1.1 trillion that was invested in oil, coal, and natural gas over 2025.

One especially sweet irony among these developments is that Trump’s war of choice in Iran is actually accelerating the global green transition. Thus, a Financial Times article from early May titled “Donald Trump’s Green New Deal” reports that the spike in oil prices caused by the Iran war has produced the strongest month of EV sales on record in Europe, a 20 percent jump in search traffic for EVs in the United States, and the highest level of solar panel installations in the United Kingdom since 2012.

The obstacles ahead obviously remain massive. But it is critical to recognize that the forces supporting a global green transition — i.e., the project for saving the planet — are advancing and will continue to advance as long as supporters remain focused around everything that is required for building the movement. This includes large-scale clean energy investments generating equally large-scale job opportunities. It equally includes just transition support for the workers and communities whose livelihoods are currently dependent on the fossil fuel industry.


This article was originally published by Truthout; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.Email
avatar

Robert Pollin is an American economist and professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is founding co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI).

Is A New Copernican Revolution Already Underway?

Source: Ecocivilization

In 1543, a Polish astronomer named Nicolaus Copernicus published a book that shattered the foundations of Western civilization’s understanding of reality. For over a thousand years, the received wisdom—backed by the authority of the Church and the apparent testimony of every human sense—was that the Earth stood fixed and motionless at the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon, planets, and stars all revolved around it. Copernicus upended all this. He demonstrated, through careful mathematical reasoning, that the Earth was simply another planet orbiting the sun, which was itself merely another star.

The implications were staggering. If the Earth was not the center of the universe, humanity could no longer claim the cosmic pedestal it had occupied. The revolution Copernicus initiated—carried forward by Galileo, Kepler, and Newton—went on to overturn, not just astronomy, but an entire worldview, reshaping philosophy, theology, and humankind’s understanding of its own place in the cosmos. This is what historians of science mean when they speak of a Copernican revolution: not merely a correction of facts, but a transformation of the framework through which reality itself is perceived.

And yet, there is a deep irony buried within that revolution. The same scientific worldview that displaced Earth from the center of the universe placed “Man” at the center of the living world—as nature’s supreme conqueror and its rightful master. The very methods that revealed our planet’s cosmic insignificance were used to establish something else: the principle that nature exists primarily as a resource for human use, a complicated machine whose mechanisms can be deciphered and controlled by human endeavor. One decentering gave birth to another, far more consequential, centering—and we are still living inside it.

Today, there are signs that a second Copernican revolution may be stirring. And if it succeeds, it may be just as disruptive—and even more necessary—than the first.

The ideology of human supremacy

Here in the throes of the Anthropocene, the relationship between humanity and the rest of life on Earth is characterized by untrammeled domination and desecration. Homo sapiens, comprising only 0.01 percent of Earth’s biomass, has extinguished roughly 85 percent of all wild animals, 80 percent of marine mammals, and about half the world’s plant biomass. Humans, along with domesticated animals, now represent 96 percent of all land mammals by weight. Scientists repeatedly warn that wildlife populations are nearing “points of no return” and that we are on the verge of “shattering Earth’s natural limits”—all to no avail. We are well on the way to the Sixth Great Extinction since life began on Earth—the only one caused by the conscious activities of a single species.

The cattle, pigs, and chickens that have replaced that lost wildlife are, meanwhile, enslaved in factory farms, brutally tortured, and mercilessly slaughtered for human convenience. Every year, 85 billion animals — each one a sentient creature with a nervous system as capable of registering excruciating pain as you or me — undergo the systematic torment of an unnaturally brief life of terror and misery.

How does the vast bulk of humanity accept this ongoing holocaust of life conducted in their name? One reason is the “distancing phenomenon” by which excruciating violence, such as that suffered by domesticated animals, is kept invisible to most people. Another is the hegemony of billionaire-owned mass media ensuring that, while nearly everyone knows the winner of the Super Bowl, very few are aware of nature’s “Great Dying.”

Underlying these, however, is a deeper reason: the all-embracing but unseen ideology of human supremacy, which claims innate superiority of humans over all other life forms, rendering it morally acceptable to cause untold suffering to nonhuman life for any human convenience. As ecological philosopher Eileen Crist explains, human supremacy turns living beings into mere resources to be exploited, reclassifying fish as “fisheries” and farm animals as “livestock.” This anthropocentric doctrine gives moral license for humans to poison rivers, extirpate species, convert vibrant ecosystems into monocrop wastelands, and treat the entire Earth as a mere container of raw materials.

This extreme form of anthropocentrism is a logical outcome of the dominant worldview that the Copernican revolution helped to forge in early modern Europe. It conceives of the natural world as a mere mechanism — something to be taken apart, analyzed, and manipulated for human purposes.

Diametrically opposed to this worldview, Indigenous peoples around the globe have, for millennia, understood the world around them to be more like an extended family—a community of subjects rather than objects, of which humans are merely one lineage among others. The gulf between worldviews was summed up by Smohalla, a Wanapum medicine man in the nineteenth century, with these searing words:

You ask me to plow the ground! Shall I take a knife and tear my mother’s breast? Then when I die she will not take me to her bosom to rest. You ask me to dig for stone! Shall I dig under her skin for her bones? Then when I die I cannot enter her body to be born again. You ask me to cut grass and make hay and sell it, and be rich like white men! But how dare I cut off my mother’s hair?

Since Smohalla’s time, modern scientific insights have demonstrated a remarkable confluence with the understanding of both Indigenous knowledge and other non-European wisdom traditions. We are indeed related to all life forms, sharing more than 60 percent of our genes with fruit flies and bananas. Advances in systems sciences, complexity theory, and cognitive science have likewise contradicted the dominant worldview of separation, pointing instead to a worldview of deep interconnectedness—seeing humanity as intricately embedded in a web of connectivity.

Once we recognize there is no ethical basis for the assumption of human supremacy, an entirely different perspective opens on the norms by which our society works—and the laws that enforce them.

Rights for mother earth

The law, as it stands, is completely anthropocentric. It reserves rights and privileges only to humans and their legal constructions (such as corporations) and reduces the rest of life on Earth to the status of property. There is, of course, environmental legislation that regulates how much ecological harm can be caused by industry—but that is precisely the point. Current laws do not protect the Earth from harm caused by humans because that’s not their purpose. They exist to regulate the pace and terms of its exploitation.

Earth jurisprudence begins from a different paradigm. It recognizes nature itself as a rights-bearing subject, rather than a mere object for human ownership and regulation. As visionary priest Thomas Berry—widely regarded as the philosophical progenitor of this movement—wrote in The Great Work: Our Way into the Future:

In reality there is a single integral community of the Earth that includes all its component members whether human or other than human. In this community every being has its own role to fulfill, its own dignity, its inner spontaneity. Every being has its own voice. Every being declares itself to the entire universe. Every being enters into communion with other beings. This capacity for relatedness, for presence to other beings, for spontaneity in action, is a capacity possessed by every mode of being throughout the entire universe.

In an interconnected world, Berry elaborated, “all rights are limited and relative.” Humans have rights to nourishment, shelter, and well-being, but “no rights to deprive other species of their proper habitat” nor “to disturb the basic functioning of the biosystems of the planet.”

Acknowledging nature’s rights upends the paradigm of law with a Copernican-style transformation. As Berry explained, law becomes an extension of ecology, rather than ecology being subsumed under law. Instead of law facilitating the human destruction of nature, Earth jurisprudence grants nature the power to participate in the legal system—allowing it to make claims against individuals and corporations and demands for restoration and care.

The fact that trees, species, or ecosystems can’t speak for themselves doesn’t present an insurmountable legal problem. The law is replete with analogous instances such as infants or comatose patients. In these examples, courts appoint guardians to represent them, as can be done for nonhuman entities.

From theory to constitution

This legal paradigm shift began in the West with a seminal 1972 article by Christopher Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” which proposed granting rights not only to natural entities but “to the natural environment as a whole.” Although many jurists responded mockingly, Stone’s ideas found their way that same year into a legal dissent by Supreme Court Justice Douglas in a case involving the Sierra Club.

From those early seeds, a substantial body of jurisprudence has grown. The most compelling way to effect this transformation at scale is through changing a nation’s constitution. In 2008, a historic milestone was achieved when Ecuador became the first country to recognize in its constitution the rights of Mother Earth—”Pachamama”—to “maintain and generate its vital cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes,” granting nature legal standing to be protected by law and represented in court. In Ecuador, trees do indeed have standing: in 2015, the protection of mangrove trees compelled the removal of shrimp farmers encroaching on their territory.

In 2010, Bolivia followed Ecuador’s example, passing a law recognizing the Rights of Mother Earth as a collective subject. That year, Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, Evo Morales, hosted a People’s World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth’s Rights, attended by 35,000 people from around the world. The result was a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, which recognizes Earth as an indivisible, living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with inherent rights, and defines fundamental human responsibilities to the community of life.

Meanwhile, the Stop Ecocide movement is rapidly gathering momentum toward making the crime of ecocide—reckless and severe long-term damage to ecosystems—prosecutable under national, regional, and international law. Domestic proposals have been submitted in dozens of countries, with some already adopted (in Belgium, Chile, France, and Ukraine), and the EU has formalized a directive addressing “conduct comparable to ecocide.” For senior executives of transnational corporations, who can currently direct the destruction of ecosystems around the world with impunity, these steps could have enormous ramifications.

A place at the table for nonhumans

At the other end of the scale, juridical activists have disrupted the anthropocentric paradigm by claiming legal personhood for specific animals, with attendant rights to pursue fulfilling lives rather than be used as property for human amusement. The conventional scientific approach to ethology long denied any analog between the subjective lives of animals and humans, even in the face of overwhelming evidence—a particular manifestation of human supremacy that primatologist Frans de Waal termed “anthropodenial.”

Recent advances in ethology reveal the cognitive richness of animal lives, replete with elaborate social relationships, complex emotions, and cultural learning, rendering the basis for anthropodenial ever flimsier.

In 2024, forty leading experts assembled to sign the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, affirming “strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience” to mammals and birds and “a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates.” They didn’t shy away from the moral implications. “If there is a realistic possibility that an animal is conscious—for instance, that octopuses can suffer—then this possibility merits consideration in policy contexts,” they stated.

Extending the purview to living systems that allow many beings to flourish, juridical campaigners have achieved success in attributing legal personhood to rivers. The Whanganui River in New Zealand was the first to be granted personhood in 2017 after 150 years of advocacy by the Whanganui iwi tribe, which views it as an ancestor central to its identity. Two guardians—one from the iwi, one from the government—were appointed to act on its behalf, with legal representation by two lawyers. Similar attributions have since occurred in Colombia, Canada, India, and Bangladesh.

Another previously unrepresented group has recently begun to find a place at the policymaking table: future generations. Wales, in 2015, created a Future Generations Commissioner charged with promoting sustainable development and long-term thinking across the nation. In Japan, the Future Design movement has pioneered a uniquely dramatic approach in which imaginary future generations, dressed in distinctive ceremonial costume, engage in policymaking debates asserting the viewpoint from 2060. Studies report that input from “future residents” leads to more radical and progressive municipal plans than otherwise.

Future generations have established legal standing in litigation as well—in a landmark ruling in 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ordered its government to take more aggressive action to secure “the legal right to a safe climate and healthy atmosphere for all present and future generations.”

Welcomed back into the family of living beings

Are these scattered legal advances enough to constitute a Copernican revolution? Certainly not yet. But they may be its early tremors.

The original Copernican revolution took more than a century to fully propagate—from Copernicus’s cautious 1543 publication, through Galileo’s persecution, to Newton’s synthesis in 1687. It faced fierce resistance precisely because it did not merely revise a set of facts; it unsettled an entire cosmology. So too with the paradigm shift now under way. The idea that rivers can hold rights, that future generations deserve legal standing, that the destruction of an ecosystem is a crime—these are not technical adjustments to existing law. They are harbingers of a different relationship between humanity and the living world.

Developments in modern science continue to further corroborate this shift. What began as philosophical challenge has become empirical fact. Ethology continues to reveal the cognitive richness of animal lives — the grief of elephants, the cultural transmission of whales, the name-based social bonds of dolphins. Mycology has uncovered the vast fungal networks through which forests share nutrients and signals across vast distances. The more closely we look, the more clearly we see that there is no moral basis whatsoever for the human dominion upon which this civilization takes its stand.

Once we reorient through this paradigm shift, a fundamentally different world comes into view. A world where our species has shed the fallacy of human supremacy and been welcomed back into the family of living beings, coexisting with our nonhuman relations in a mutually beneficial manner. A world where the mass torture and slaughter of other sentient beings has been banished into the history books, and where the miracle of nature’s abundance, accumulated over billions of years, once again plays a central role in Earth’s flourishing.

The Earth Charter, a foundational statement of this emerging jurisprudence, states in its preamble:

Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

Copernicus displaced Earth from the center of the universe. The revolution now gathering force would take humanity out of the center of the living world—not to diminish us, but to restore us to our proper place within it.

Whether that revolution unfolds in time is one of the most consequential open questions of our age.


This article was originally published by Ecocivilization; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.