Written By Germán & Co

“Many brand today’s world a ‘two-legged rat!’ for the brazen deception it embodies...

"As President, I will set a national goal of ensuring that America has the No. 1 lowest cost of energy of any industrial country anywhere on Earth."

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-america-must-have-the-1-lowest-cost-energy-and-electricity-on-earth

Hypotheses: “At a Crucial Crossroads: The Future of U.S. and Global Energy…

America stands at a fateful energy crossroads, echoing past cycles of crisis and retrenchment. From the 1970s oil shocks that spurred calls for independence to later complacency when oil was cheap, U.S. energy policy has repeatedly swung between urgency and inertia (Browner, 2010). Now climate change amplifies the stakes, making this moment a critical turning point.

A new development came on January 20, 2025, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending Inflation Reduction Act funding disbursements—particularly those referred to in Section 2 of the order. Nicknamed “Terminating the Green New Deal,” it also pauses Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act spending, effectively freezing billions allocated for clean energy and manufacturing projects (Magill, 2025). While the White House clarified that only certain segments of the law are affected, federal agencies face a 90-day deadline to review and propose new spending recommendations.

One path still doubles down on fossil fuel dominance, promising short-term economic gains and energy security but locking in climate chaos and potential geopolitical liabilities (Reuters, 2024). The other path fully commits to renewable energy, delivering innovation and long-term sustainability. Yet overcoming powerful fossil fuel lobbies and reliance on foreign-made critical minerals remains challenging (Sayki and Cloutier, 2023). The U.S. stands at a high-stakes juncture—continuing the status quo risks climate disaster and missed technological leadership, while bold action could secure economic vitality for generations.

References:

1.   Browner, C. (2010) 'Taking initiative on clean energy', Politico, 12 July 2010.

2.   Magill, K. (2025) ‘Trump freezes Inflation Reduction Act funding’, Manufacturing Dive, 24 January 2025.

3.   Reuters (2024) 'How do Trump and Harris differ on energy policy?', Reuters, 29 October 2024.

4.   Sayki, I. and Cloutier, J. (2023) 'Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022', OpenSecrets, 22 February 2023.

Background:

U.S. Energy Strategy: Industry Influence, Economics, and the Shift Toward Traditional Sources

Introduction:

The United States has long fluctuated between prioritizing traditional energy sources (oil, gas, coal) and renewable energy in its national strategy. These shifts are rarely accidental; they reflect a complex interplay of industry ties, economic factors, and policy preferences among leaders. When policy leans toward traditional fossil fuels, it often correlates with strong lobbying influence and short-term economic arguments, whereas pushes for renewables tend to follow environmental concerns, innovation booms, or global agreements. This analysis examines: (1) historical swings in U.S. energy policy, (2) the economic impacts of fossil fuels vs. renewables (jobs, stability, subsidies), (3) how fossil industry lobbying shapes policy, (4) geopolitical implications of favoring traditional energy (security, trade, diplomacy), and (5) the environmental consequences of pivoting away from renewables.

Historical Trends in U.S. Energy Policy

U.S. energy policy has see-sawed over the decades, with periods of innovation and renewable investment often followed by returns to oil, gas, and even coal. Key shifts include:

1. 1970s – Crisis and Alternatives: The 1973 oil embargo and energy crisis jolted policymakers into reducing dependence on foreign oil. The government funded the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, while also investing in renewable fuels and R&D (ethanol, biodiesel, solar, wind) for the first time (Choices Article - Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy). Conservation took hold: Congress enacted fuel economy standards, and Americans embraced energy efficiency, briefly curbing demand growth (Choices Article - Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy).

2. 1980s – Return to Oil: With oil prices stabilizing in the mid-1980s, momentum for renewables waned. Federal tax credits for solar and wind established in the late ‘70s expired, and President Reagan famously removed solar panels from the White House roof, signaling a policy reversion to traditional energy. Domestic oil and gas production and deregulation were again emphasized, while nascent renewable programs stalled (no major new federal mandates in this era).

3. 1990s – Mixed Signals: Low energy prices kept renewables on the policy back-burner for much of the 1990s. However, concerns about energy security resurfaced when global demand pushed oil prices up in the late ‘90s (Choices Article - Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy). The 1992 Energy Policy Act and other laws introduced some incentives for alternative energy (e.g. wind production tax credit in 1992) and required federal fleets to use alternative fuels, but fossil fuels still dominated the agenda.

4. 2000s – Energy Security vs. Climate: The early 2000s saw industry influence at a peak. In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force—stacked with oil executives—drafted a policy focused on expanding fossil production. (The task force met at least six times with Enron and other energy company executives behind closed doors (Big GOP contributor advised administration's energy task force – Center for Public Integrity), spurring lawsuits over the secrecy and undue influence (Big GOP contributor advised administration's energy task force – Center for Public Integrity).) President George W. Bush, himself from the oil industry, nonetheless supported some renewables for energy security – the 2005 energy law established a renewable fuel standard for ethanol, and his administration promoted biofuels to reduce oil import dependence (Choices Article - Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy). By contrast, states like California began adopting aggressive renewable portfolio standards. Late in the decade, President Obama’s 2009 stimulus injected billions into clean energy and efficiency, marking a strong pivot toward renewables and climate policy (e.g. subsidies for solar, wind, electric vehicles, and the beginnings of EPA carbon regulations).

5. 2010s – Transition and Pushback: Under Obama, the U.S. joined the Paris Climate Agreement and implemented the Clean Power Plan to shift electricity from coal to wind, solar, and gas. Renewable generation surged, while coal plant closures accelerated. However, the 2016 election ushered in a sharp reversal. President Donald Trump made a “America First Energy Plan” to revive coal and expand oil and gas the centerpiece of his agenda. He withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and rolled back Obama-era regulations, justifying a “robust emphasis on fossil fuels” and a scaling back of renewable programs as necessary for lower energy prices and “energy dominance” (Trump has big plans for climate and energy policy, but can he implement them?). This meant more federal land drilling, faster pipeline approvals, and attempts to bail out coal plants. Despite this traditional energy push, market forces (cheap natural gas, falling renewable costs) kept driving a renewables rise through the late 2010s.

6. 2020s – Climate Priorities Return: In 2021, the pendulum swung again. The Biden administration rejoined the Paris accord and passed unprecedented clean energy investments (the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 alone put $369 billion toward clean energy). Even so, debates continue: global events like the 2022 war in Ukraine prompted calls for more U.S. oil and gas production to secure allies’ energy supply, showing the constant tension between short-term energy security goals and long-term climate/renewable goals in U.S. strategy.

Source:

  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (n.d.)** ‘Energy sources have changed throughout the history of the United States’. Available at: <https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11951>.

Economic Impacts: Fossil Fuels vs. Renewable Energy

Economic considerations are central to energy policy decisions. Politicians often weigh the job creation potential, market stability, and subsidies of fossil fuels against those of renewables – and these factors can cut both ways:

1. Jobs and Industry Growth: Traditional energy sectors (oil, gas, coal) have historically been major employers, but clean energy now leads in job creation. By the late 2010s, U.S. clean energy jobs already outnumbered fossil fuel jobs roughly 3-to-1 (). For example, solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians became some of the fastest-growing occupations. One report found over 3.3 million Americans were employed in clean energy (renewables, energy efficiency, electric vehicles) in 2018, far exceeding fossil fuel extraction and generation jobs (). These trends continued into the 2020s as solar and wind capacity expanded. In contrast, coal mining jobs have steadily declined for decades due to automation and competition, and even oil/gas employment can swing with commodity prices. Renewable energy investments tend to produce more jobs per dollar because they are more labor-intensive during construction and installation (e.g. building a wind farm employs many workers even if operating it later is low-labor). This makes the “jobs” argument for shifting back to fossil fuels weaker over time, except in specific regions (e.g. coal country) where fossil jobs are concentrated.

2. Market Stability and Energy Costs: Fossil fuel markets are inherently cyclical and volatile – oil and gas prices boom and bust based on global supply, conflict, and OPEC decisions. This volatility can destabilize the broader economy: in fact, spiking fossil energy prices were responsible for about one-third of the 9.1% U.S. inflation at the peak of 2022 (Fossil Fuel–Driven Price Volatility Demonstrates the Need for a Renewable Transition - Roosevelt Institute). Renewables, by contrast, have stable and declining costs over time (once a solar farm is built, the “fuel” – sunlight – is free). Greater adoption of renewables can insulate the economy from oil price shocks. A recent analysis argues that relying on fossil fuels poses a “persistent threat” to price stability, and that shifting to renewable electricity would help tame long-term inflation fluctuations (Fossil Fuel–Driven Price Volatility Demonstrates the Need for a Renewable Transition - Roosevelt Institute). However, opponents of rapid renewable adoption point out short-term reliability and integration costs – e.g. the need for grid upgrades and storage – which can affect energy prices during the transition. Still, on a per-unit cost basis, wind and solar are now often the cheapest new sources of power in the U.S., even beating natural gas in many regions (especially when volatility is factored in).

3. Government Subsidies and Support: Fossil fuels have enjoyed generous government support for decades, far more than renewables until very recently. Tax breaks and subsidies for oil, gas, and coal date back as far as the early 20th century (and even the 1800s in the case of coal tariffs) A historical review noted that federal support for renewables has been “minimal compared with the past government investment in coal, gas, oil, or nuclear,” which helped those traditional industries grow ([Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies Even today, the U.S. tax code provides oil and gas producers deductions for drilling costs, depletion allowances, and other incentives that effectively subsidize fossil energy. In addition, external costs like climate change and pollution are not priced into fossil fuels (another implicit subsidy). Renewables also receive subsidies (e.g. federal wind and solar tax credits, state renewable mandates), but these only scaled up significantly in the 2000s-2010s. By the 2020s, federal policy began leveling the field – the Inflation Reduction Act 2022 created long-term tax credits for clean energy worth hundreds of billions, aiming to spur domestic manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc. The economic debate often centers on which sector deserves public support: proponents of fossil fuels argue they provide reliable energy and tax revenues, while clean energy advocates note that investment in renewables yields future industries and avoids environmental damages. Notably, studies show renewable investments generate good-paying jobs and innovation without the long-term environmental liabilities of fossil fuels. In summary, short-term economic arguments for sticking with traditional energy (existing jobs, immediate infrastructure) are weighed against long-term gains from the growing, more stable clean energy economy.

Source:

  Johnson, J. (2011) ‘Long History of U.S. Energy Subsidies: Report shows centuries of government support for fossil fuels, much less for renewable energy’, Chemical & Engineering News, 89(51). Available at: https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html#:~:text=Using%20government%20documents%2C%20academic%20papers%2C,new%20energy%20technologies%20and%20infrastructures (A).

Fossil Fuel Industry Influence and Lobbying in Policy Decisions

The trajectory of U.S. energy strategy cannot be understood without acknowledging the power of the fossil fuel lobby. Oil, gas, and coal companies have deep ties in Washington, built over a century of political spending and networking, which they use to shape policy in their favor. Key aspects of this influence include:

1. Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Funding: The fossil fuel industry is one of the top spenders on lobbying federal officials. In 2022 alone, the U.S. oil and gas industry spent about $124.4 million lobbying Congress and the executive branch (Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 • OpenSecrets). This money funds armies of lobbyists who advocate for permits, tax breaks, and favorable regulations for drilling and mining. Moreover, industry trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute amplify this influence (API spent over $4 million on lobbying in 2022) (Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 • OpenSecrets). The industry also pours tens of millions into campaign contributions, predominantly to politicians who oppose aggressive climate policies. Over the 2000s, fossil-fuel-linked political action committees and donors outspent renewable energy advocates by a wide margin – one analysis found that anti-climate lobby groups and PACs outspent climate advocacy by 27-to-1 from 2008 to 2018 (Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 • OpenSecrets). This financial clout translates to access: lawmakers reliant on campaign funds are more likely to vote against carbon taxes or to support oil subsidies. The result is often policy gridlock or rollback on clean energy initiatives whenever fossil interests are threatened.

2. Revolving Doors and Policy Capture: Beyond money, fossil fuel companies have secured influence by positioning allies in government. It’s common for oil executives and lobbyists to rotate into top energy policy jobs (and vice versa). For example, in the early 2000s, Vice President Cheney (a former oil-services CEO) convened an energy task force that met secretly with industry executives to craft national energy policy (Big GOP contributor advised administration's energy task force – Center for Public Integrity). The task force’s recommendations closely mirrored oil and gas industry wishes, highlighting how direct input from industry insiders can steer policy. More recently, during the Trump administration, several key officials had oil industry ties – from the Secretary of State (ex-ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson) to Interior Department appointees who had worked for extractive industries. These ties often led to regulatory appointments of individuals skeptical of renewable energy or climate science, and decisions like opening more public lands to drilling or weakening methane emission rules. In short, the fossil lobby’s influence permeates all levels: writing legislation, guiding agency rules, and even shaping public narratives (through funding of think tanks and advertising). By contrast, the renewable energy lobby and environmental groups, while growing in influence, have historically had far fewer resources. This imbalance helps explain why U.S. policies have sometimes been slow to embrace renewables despite their technological viability – incumbent industries use political power to delay the transition.

Geopolitical Implications of Prioritizing Traditional Energy Sources

Energy policy is not just a domestic issue; it has far-reaching geopolitical effects. Emphasizing traditional fossil fuels in U.S. strategy carries a mix of benefits and risks for national security, global markets, and diplomacy:

1. Energy Security and Independence: A key argument for boosting domestic oil, gas, and coal is to improve U.S. energy security – ensuring the nation isn’t overly reliant on foreign suppliers. In the past 15 years, the U.S. shale revolution dramatically increased domestic production, making the U.S. the world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas by the mid-2010s (Geopolitical implications of U.S. oil and gas in the global market). Greater output at home means less dependence on unstable regions: for example, U.S. imports of oil have fallen from over 60% of consumption in 2005 to roughly 25% by 2019. A fossil-focused “energy dominance” strategy leverages this boon – using abundant U.S. oil and gas to supply both domestic needs and allies abroad. Indeed, expanding LNG (liquefied natural gas) exports has given the U.S. a tool to help Europe diversify away from Russian gas. However, true energy independence remains elusive. Even at record production, the U.S. still imports about 10 million barrels of oil per day, and domestic prices are tied to the volatile global market (Geopolitical implications of U.S. oil and gas in the global market). Prioritizing fossil fuels may increase production, but it cannot fully shield the U.S. from global price shocks or supply disruptions (e.g. a war in the Middle East can still send U.S. gasoline prices soaring). By contrast, a more renewable-based system would source energy from domestic wind, sun, and other inexhaustible resources, reducing vulnerability to international supply swings once the infrastructure is in place. In sum, boosting traditional energy offers short-term security via supply abundance, yet it keeps the U.S. tethered to a volatile global fossil market in the long run.

2. Trade Dependencies: The choice between fossil and renewable emphasis also affects trade relationships and dependencies. Relying on oil often entangles the U.S. with petrostates (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela) to secure supply or stabilize prices. Conversely, pursuing renewables can create new dependencies on clean technology supply chains – notably, minerals and manufacturing dominated by China. For instance, China today accounts for nearly 85% of global solar panel production (Regional distribution of solar module production | Statista) and is a leading supplier of lithium-ion batteries for energy storage and electric vehicles. If the U.S. forgoes investing in renewables now, it might later find itself buying solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries from abroad, ceding industrial leadership to rivals. We already see this in the solar sector: China’s massive scale and control of raw materials have given it a near-monopoly in solar manufacturing. Thus, a fossil-centric path could swap one dependency (oil from OPEC) for another (clean tech hardware from Asia) as the world eventually transitions. From a trade perspective, there is also a risk that U.S. goods could face carbon tariffs in the future from regions like the EU if America is viewed as not doing its share on emissions. On the positive side, maintaining robust oil and gas capacity allows the U.S. to be an energy exporter. In recent years the U.S. became a top LNG exporter, strengthening trade ties with gas-importing allies (Europe, Japan) and undercutting adversaries who use energy as coercion. In summary, geopolitics cuts both ways: traditional energy dominance can bolster U.S. influence in hydrocarbon markets, but a lagging clean tech sector could leave the U.S. dependent on foreign renewable technology in the future.

3. Diplomatic Strategy and Global Leadership: Energy policy sends a powerful signal about U.S. global priorities. Emphasizing fossil fuels domestically often goes hand-in-hand with a retreat from international climate initiatives, which can strain alliances with countries prioritizing climate action. A vivid example was the Trump administration’s decision to quit the Paris Climate Agreement and champion coal at UN climate forums, which isolated the U.S. from European allies and undermined U.S. credibility in global environmental diplomacy (Trump has big plans for climate and energy policy, but can he implement them?). Countries in the EU, as well as emerging powers vulnerable to climate impacts, generally want the U.S. engaged in the clean energy transition. If U.S. policy swings back to traditional energy, it may gain favor with other petro-states (creating closer ties with countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia on energy matters) but at the cost of diplomatic capital with a much larger group of nations committed to carbon reduction. Moreover, climate change is increasingly at the center of international security discussions; a U.S. that downplays renewables may be seen as not leading on one of the defining issues of the century. On the other hand, being a major fossil fuel producer does give the U.S. certain strategic advantages: it can impose oil sanctions on adversaries (as it did on Iran and Venezuela) with less fear of domestic shortages, and it can use energy exports as a foreign policy tool (for instance, offering shipments of LNG to friends in need). Ultimately, prioritizing traditional energy provides short-term geopolitical leverage in a fossil-fuel-driven world, but it runs the risk of diminishing U.S. leadership in the inevitable global shift toward clean energy. Many experts note that the energy transition will redraw geopolitical maps – countries that lead in renewable technologies may gain influence, while those clinging solely to fossil fuels could see their power wane as demand for oil declines in the long run. The U.S. faces a strategic choice in that regard.

Environmental Consequences of Shifting Away from Renewables

Perhaps the most profound impact of favoring fossil fuels over renewables is on the environment and climate. The scientific consensus is clear that burning fossil fuels is the primary driver of global climate change, and that a rapid transition to clean energy is needed to avoid catastrophic impacts. The environmental stakes of the policy reversal are high:

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Fossil fuel combustion (for electricity, transportation, and industry) accounts for the majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Renewables, by contrast, produce little to no direct emissions. For example, a wind turbine or solar panel emits essentially zero CO₂ in operation, whereas a coal plant releases roughly 1 ton of CO₂ per MWh. If the U.S. slows its renewable energy build-out and burns more coal, oil, and gas, its emissions trajectory will worsen. This would undermine national targets to cut emissions (the U.S. pledged a 50% reduction by 2030 under Paris) and make global climate stabilization harder. Recent progress illustrates the difference policy can make: U.S. energy-related carbon emissions had been declining in part due to coal-to-gas switching and renewable growth (US Energy Policy: A Changing Landscape) (US Energy Policy: A Changing Landscape). But a resurgence of coal use or expanded oil consumption could reverse that decline. In short, shifting away from renewables means higher emissions, jeopardizing climate goals. One analysis projects that if clean energy transition stalls, U.S. emissions would only drop modestly by 2035 – far below what’s needed to limit warming. Beyond CO₂, increased fossil fuel use also elevates emissions of methane (from natural gas systems) and other pollutants.

2. Pollution and Public Health: Traditional fossil fuels have significant environmental footprints beyond climate change. Coal-fired power plants and diesel engines emit pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and mercury, which degrade air quality and cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in the population. Oil drilling and coal mining can contaminate water supplies and destroy natural habitats. A policy shift favoring these sources would extend such impacts. By contrast, renewable energy has a much smaller environmental footprint. As a Department of Energy factsheet notes, the current U.S. fossil-heavy energy mix is linked to issues like acid rain, air pollution, and water contamination, whereas renewables can meet energy demand with far fewer of these side effects (U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems). In 2018, it was estimated that air pollution from fossil fuels cost the global economy $2.9 trillion in health and environmental damages – costs that would fall dramatically in a cleaner energy scenario. Thus, stepping back from renewables carries an opportunity cost in lost health benefits. Additionally, fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines, refineries, mines) often impacts vulnerable communities, raising environmental justice concerns if those are expanded.

3. Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: Ironically, doubling down on fossil fuels can make the U.S. less resilient in the face of climate change. As global warming accelerates, extreme weather (hurricanes, wildfires, heat waves) threatens energy infrastructure and reliability. A renewable-based, distributed energy system with energy storage is seen by experts as more adaptable and resilient to such disruptions (for example, rooftop solar with batteries can keep lights on during grid outages). If policy shifts focus back to centralized fossil power plants and a high-carbon system, the U.S. may face greater long-term costs from climate adaptation and disaster recovery. Moreover, the environmental momentum loss is significant: scaling back support for renewables could slow the improvement of technologies like energy storage, smart grids, and electric vehicles – all crucial for sustainability. In contrast, maintaining a renewable trajectory yields positive feedback: as solar, wind, and battery tech improve and scale up, they get cheaper and more efficient, accelerating emissions reductions further. A halt or reversal would delay that virtuous cycle.

In summary, the environmental consequences of favoring traditional energy are unequivocally negative: higher greenhouse emissions driving more severe climate change, more air and water pollution harming public health, and a missed chance to mitigate and adapt to climate risks. Every year of delay in the renewable transition locks in additional CO₂ in the atmosphere that will persist for centuries. This is why many scientists and economists argue that the long-term environmental costs of reverting to fossil fuels far outweigh any short-term economic gains. Renewable energy, while not impact-free, offers a path to sustainable growth that fossil fuels simply cannot match in environmental performance (renewables produce far less greenhouse gas and pollution in operation (Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Sources | ADEC ESG)).

References:

1. Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS) (2023). U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet. University of Michigan. Available at: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/us-renewable-energy-factsheet (Accessed 27 Feb 2025).

2. Duffield, J.A. & Collins, K. (2006). Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy. Choices Magazine 21(1).

3. Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) (2019). Clean Jobs America: Repowering Communities. E2 Clean Jobs America Report. Available at: https://www.e2.org/reports/clean-jobs-america-2019/.

4. Gross, S. (2018). Geopolitical implications of U.S. oil and gas in the global market. Testimony to U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, 22 May 2018. Brookings Institution. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/geopolitical-implications-of-u-s-oil-and-gas-in-the-global-market/.

5. Gross, S. & Sall, L. (2024). Trump has big plans for climate and energy policy, but can he implement them? Brookings Institution. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-has-big-plans-for-climate-and-energy-policy-but-can-he-implement-them/.

6. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023). Solar PV Global Supply Chains. IEA Report (July 2023).

7. Johnson, J. (2011). Long History of U.S. Energy Subsidies: Report shows centuries of government support for fossil fuels, much less for renewable energy. Chemical & Engineering News, 89(51).

8. Karlsson, K. & Melodia, L. (2023). Fossil Fuel–Driven Price Volatility Demonstrates the Need for a Renewable Transition. Roosevelt Institute Brief, Nov 2023. Available at: https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/fossil-fuel-driven-price-volatility-demonstrates-the-need-for-a-renewable-transition/.

9. Moore, R. (2002). Big GOP contributor advised administration’s energy task force. Center for Public Integrity, 31 Jan 2002. Available at: https://publicintegrity.org/politics/big-gop-contributor-advised-administrations-energy-task-force/.

10. Sayki, I. & Cloutier, J. (2023). Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022. OpenSecrets, 22 Feb 2023. Available at: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/.

11. Scandrett, G. (2024). Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Sources. ADEC Innovations ESG Blog, updated 9 Dec 2024. Available at: https://www.adecesg.com/resources/blog/environmental-impacts-of-renewable-energy-sources/.

Billions Going Up in Smoke: Redefining State Policy for Abrupt, Transformative Change…

Before we delve into the core issues, we must recognize a communications software firm in Stockholm. Their digital cluster has been instrumental in conducting rigorous hypothesis testing and minimising biases. This acknowledgement is particularly crucial in today's world, where geopolitical connections are increasingly unusual, disruptive, and strained across two hundred partnerships. Moreover, we find ourselves in an era devoid of clear ideological principles.

One prominent thinker, Peter Wason, suggested that what seems illogical can be logical. Given our limited computing resources, the software company's collaborative spirit has been essential in navigating these complexities. Wason's work, particularly the Wason selection task, highlighted: ¨how human reasoning can often be counterintuitive and influenced by context, showing that logical structures can appear illogical depending on their presentation...

At the break of dawn, Spanish newspapers with global reach announced the passing of Mexican singer Francisca Viveros Barradas, known as Paquita la del Barrio, at the age of 77. Her powerful contralto voice, rebellious persona, and extraordinary ability to channel the depths of heartbreak made her a beacon of what could be called a culture of heartache and disillusionment. Through fiery lyrics of betrayal, confusion, and sorrow—forever immortalized in the now-iconic phrase “¿Me estás oyendo, inútil?” (“Are you listening to me, you useless man?”)—Paquita gave voice to those who felt wronged or discarded. Her song “Rata de dos patas,” composed by Manuel Eduardo Toscano and featured on the 2001 album ¨Taco Placero¨, transcended Mexican cantinas, becoming an anthem of empowerment and emotional catharsis worldwide.

Connecting such intensely personal themes to broader global affairs may seem unlikely. Yet, Paquita’s raw, impassioned ballads resonate in a world grappling with profound upheaval—where betrayal and shattered trust extend beyond the personal realm to societal and political dimensions. In hidden corners of large cities, amid bustling avenues and unpaved streets where crises simmer and injustice thrives, her unwavering spirit reminds us that from the ashes of heartbreak can spring the drive for transformative change. One anecdote even recounts culture ministers from across the Americas and the Caribbean, after a day of diplomacy, belting out Paquita’s rancheras in a famed venue called “El Munich,” shouting, “Are you listening to me, you useless man?” in unison—a testament to the universality of heartbreak and frustration.

Such sentiments of accumulated grievances, deep-seated mistrust, and the urgent need for collective catharsis are also mirrored in the complexities of the energy sector. To understand the current state of the electrical industry, we must trace its evolution nearly a century back. Some researchers argue it was shaped by the interwar period, when rising nationalism and propaganda paved the way for Nazism and global conflict. Others, such as Mr. Steven Bannon, point to more recent events—particularly the 2019 Wuhan crisis—as pivotal in this historical trajectory.

Among the primary challenges in our research was establishing a historical period as a baseline and identifying manifest variables as triggers. Consequently, we compared wealth distribution, electricity consumption, and pricing between the affluent “Champagne Cup Society” of the 1980s and today’s billionaire, technology-driven era. We introduced multiple data points into various analytical models to examine how disruptive shifts in global markets have eroded accountability in the energy industry.

We also explored the political dilemma of balancing stable governance and rotating leadership—a core principle of democracy—against the sudden disruptions that can destabilise institutions in fragile developing nations. Trust is central to sustaining institutional stability and credibility, a variable we identified as indispensable. Interestingly, our initial findings uncovered “structural imbalances reminiscent of those in a fractured relationship.” But where exactly do these imbalances reside? Among nations, institutions, social groups, or individuals? Who stands to gain, and who is left vulnerable?

These questions highlight how deeply economic and political power imbalances can mirror the raw emotional discord Paquita so hauntingly captured. In love and global energy policy, trust is the central issue—its breach leading to heartbreak, upheaval, and an urgent call for systemic change.

References:

1. Bannon, S. (2020) Comments on the 2019 Wuhan Crisis, various public interviews.

2. Paquita la del Barrio (2001) Rata de dos patas. In: Taco Placero. Mexico: Musart.

3. Oxfam (2019) Global Inequality Report: The Champagne Cup Society Revisited. Oxfam International.

4. Steven Bannon and 2019 Wuhan Crisis mention adapted from: Bannon, S. (2020) Public Commentary on Global Crises. Available at: [URL] (Accessed: [date]).

5. ‘Champagne Cup Society’ reference: World Inequality Database (2018) Champagne Glass and Wealth Distribution Studies, [Online]. Available at: [URL] (Accessed: [date]).

6. Earthjustice. (2024). Two Years Ago, We Passed the Biggest Climate Spending Bill Ever. Here’s What It Has Achieved. *Earthjustice*.

Structural Imbalances and the War Over Energy: A Deeper Look 

In recent years, global observers have drawn parallels between deep-rooted economic frictions and the dynamics of a fractured relationship. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the structural imbalance primarily between China and the United States, driven by stark contrasts in trade flows and economic policies. China’s export-driven growth model, reinforced by low labor costs and state-led industrial strategies, clashes with the United States’ significant trade deficit and reliance on imported goods. Add to this divergence in currency regimes—China’s tightly managed yuan versus the freely traded U.S. dollar—and tensions surrounding intellectual property rights create the potential for a protracted trade conflict. These persistent discrepancies fuel broader geopolitical rivalries, evidenced by tit-for-tat tariffs, fierce negotiations, and looming threats of decoupling (Krugman, 2020). 

The second, more pressing question is whether the global trend genuinely favours renewable energy or pays lip service to it. The underlying challenge relates to “systemic inertia,” the entrenched structures of power and profit that remain heavily invested in coal, oil, and gas (IEA, 2022). While many nations are implementing policies to promote wind farms, solar parks, and battery storage, fossil fuel dependence is immense. Breaking free requires more than technological feasibility; it demands dismantling century-old financial and geopolitical frameworks built upon hydrocarbons. One analysis note, “Fossil fuels are not merely energy commodities; they form the bedrock of modern economies, geopolitical leverage, and global oil empires” (Bridge & Le Billon, 2017). This fundamental truth underscores why any shift towards renewables necessitates a deeper reconfiguration of global power hierarchies—challenging the states and corporations whose influence, capital, and infrastructure are intertwined with fossil extraction and trade. 

Herein lies the paradox: while new technologies and growing environmental imperatives advocate for decarbonisation, powerful actors defend fossil fuel interests under economic stability, energy security, and job protection. For instance, oil majors invest significantly in lobbying to extend drilling permits, while some governments hesitate to curtail their coal assets due to immediate revenue needs (Rystad Energy, 2022). Even in China—rapidly becoming a world leader in renewables—coal remains a substantial part of its energy matrix, attesting to the complex balance between growth targets and green initiatives (World Bank, 2023). 

Ultimately, the so-called “war” over energy sources runs more profound than the physical dominance of fossil fields. It is a battle over global order—deciding who writes the rules, who reaps the profits, and whose voice commands the conversation in the age of climate change. A mere pivot to solar panels and wind turbines is insufficient if underlying structures, from financial systems to political alliances, remain tethered to fossil paradigms. This clash could culminate in a genuine clean energy revolution—or a prolonged stalemate that tests the resilience of international cooperation. The fate of the planet’s climate, global prosperity, and geopolitical stability hinges on how swiftly or reluctantly these imbalances are resolved.I

Green Energy at a Crossroads: Will Trillions in Investments Stand the Test of Time?¨

The global shift toward green energy has been monumental: trillions of dollars have poured into wind farms, solar installations, electric vehicle infrastructure, and emerging technologies such as hydrogen and advanced battery storage. These funds, sourced from banks, trade unions, and government subsidies, represent not merely a financial bet but a collective commitment to curbing the existential threat of climate change. Yet, the fate of these vast investments hinges on several critical factors that will determine whether green energy continues to flourish or stall under shifting political winds.

First, policy stability remains paramount. While many governments set ambitious climate targets and enacted incentives for renewable energy, these policies can swing dramatically with leadership changes. A supportive administration may provide grants, tax breaks, and regulatory backing for new wind farms or solar arrays, only for a successor to scale back or freeze that funding. This inconsistency creates uncertainty for investors, raising the perceived risk of renewable projects. Strong, bipartisan policy frameworks are thus essential for long-term market confidence (IEA, 2023).

Second, technological innovation is expanding at breakneck speed, driving down the cost of green energy. Solar and wind power are no longer fringe options; they are increasingly competitive with fossil fuels on a levelized cost basis (IRENA, 2022). Meanwhile, advancements in battery technology and hydrogen fuel cells address intermittency concerns, enabling greater grid flexibility. As new breakthroughs emerge—such as next-generation nuclear, carbon capture solutions, and energy-dense batteries—the green sector could become even more cost-effective, displacing the final barriers to widespread adoption. This virtuous cycle of innovation can, in turn, attract even more capital to the sector.

Third, financial sector enthusiasm has shifted. In the past, renewable projects were regarded as niche or high-risk ventures. However, increasing climate awareness and pressure from stakeholders—from trade funds to institutional investors who are mindful of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues—have changed this perception criteria—and have propelled major banks and pension funds to commit billions to green portfolios. The rise of green bonds and sustainability-linked loans provides further evidence that capital markets now view clean energy as a viable, profitable sector (BloombergNEF, 2021). Still, market appetites can change rapidly: a technological stock downturn, a global recession, or geopolitically driven fossil fuel price manipulation could redirect investment flows.

Finally, global cooperation plays a pivotal role. Climate change is an international crisis demanding coordinated action. If geopolitical rifts deepen—evidenced by trade wars and resource nationalism—supply chains for wind turbines, solar panels, and battery components could fragment. Such fragmentation would raise costs, hamper innovation, and slow deployment. Conversely, collaboration through treaties, research partnerships, and aligned industrial policies can expedite progress, ensuring that these trillion-dollar investments yield substantial environmental and economic returns (IPCC, 2023).

In the end, the green energy sector stands at a critical inflection point. Trillions have already been invested, and many signs—from plummeting technology costs to growing public demand—are optimistic. Yet the sector’s future hinges on stable policy, technological breakthroughs, secure financing, and genuine global cooperation. Should these elements falter, the world risks squandering financial capital and a historic chance to mitigate climate change and reshape the global energy landscape.

References

1.   BloombergNEF (2021) Clean Energy Investment Trends. Available at: https://about.bnef.com/clean-energy-investment-trends/ (Accessed: [date]).

2.   International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023) Renewables 2023: Analysis and Forecast. Paris: IEA.

3.   International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2022) Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2022. Abu Dhabi: IRENA.

4.   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023) Sixth Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.

Rare Earth Elements and Geopolitical Power Struggles

Rare earth elements (REEs)—a group of 17 metallic elements—have quietly become a decisive factor in the global balance of power [1]. Their unique properties render them essential for advanced defence systems, high-tech industries, and clean energy technologies, fostering intense competition among nations for secure access.  [2]. This analysis of the strategic importance of REEs evaluates former U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed mineral deal with Ukraine, explores the role of fossil fuels in the evolving world order, and considers how control over key resources might reshape global alignments among the United States, China, and Russia, disrupting all order in every regard.

Geopolitical Importance of REEs

Central Materials for Modern Industries

REEs are indispensable to modern economies. They power high-performance magnets in military hardware, electric vehicles, and wind turbines, essential for smartphones, computers, and other digital devices [2]. Although not geologically “rare,” REEs are costly to extract and refine, partly due to their chemical complexity and environmentally damaging byproducts [1]. This makes them strategically vital yet vulnerable to supply shocks.

China’s Near-Monopoly

China dominates the global rare earth supply chain, accounting for roughly 90% of global processing capacity [6]. Through state-led investment, low labour costs, and relaxed environmental standards, China undercut other producers in the 1990s and 2000s, forcing mines elsewhere—including the U.S. Mountain Pass facility—to send ore to Chinese refineries [2]. Beijing has demonstrated a willingness to use export controls as a geopolitical lever, briefly suspending supplies to Japan in 2010 and threatening similar measures during trade tensions with the U.S. [7]. Such moves underscore the immense leverage conferred by rare earth dominance.

U.S. and Russian Responses

Alarmed by China’s grip, the U.S. and Russia have accelerated efforts to expand domestic output. The U.S. invoked the Defense Production Act to finance new Texas separation facilities while promoting “friend-shoring” with allies like Australia and Canada [4]. Russia, holding sizable reserves of its own, is investing over a billion dollars to develop large deposits in Siberia in hopes of becoming the world’s second-largest producer [3][4]. Despite these efforts, China’s entrenched position remains a formidable obstacle, and shifting the balance will require years of sustained investment and policy coordination [1].

Trump’s Mineral Deal with Ukraine: Good or Bad?

Strategic Significance of Ukraine’s Deposits

Ukraine claims to hold up to 5% of the world’s “critical” raw materials, including several promising rare earth sites such as Novopoltavske [1]. This could bolster U.S. energy security and reduce reliance on China [2]. However, much of Ukraine’s mineral data stems from outdated Soviet-era surveys that lack modern feasibility assessments [1]. Many deposits lie in conflict zones, and the country’s energy infrastructure has been severely compromised by war [2][5].

Viability and Obstacles

Rare earth extraction demands vast capital, advanced refining processes, and long development timelines—often exceeding a decade [2]. Even if Ukraine confirmed substantial reserves, building the necessary processing infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive, especially amid ongoing hostilities [2][5]. S&P Global deems Ukraine’s REE deposits potentially unprofitable in the short term given high costs, security risks, and logistical barriers [1].

Deal Terms and Friction

President Trump’s proposed agreement sought preferential access to Ukraine’s raw materials—potentially claiming 50% of future state-owned resource revenues—without offering Ukraine firm security guarantees [1]. This arrangement alarmed Ukrainian officials, who viewed it as ceding strategic assets without ensuring their defense needs. Negotiations stalled, reflecting the transactional approach favored by the Trump administration and underscoring Ukraine’s precarious position as both a beneficiary of Western support and a potential resource colony [1][2].

China–Nicaragua Rare Earths Agreement

In parallel with its global push, China recently signed a deal to develop 280,000 hectares for rare earth mining in Nicaragua [11]. The venture expands Beijing’s reach in Latin America, mirroring similar overseas investments aimed at consolidating control over strategic minerals. Although initial surveys suggest significant REE potential, these deposits' quality and economic viability remain untested [11]. Should they prove profitable, China’s dominance in the sector could grow further, complicating Western efforts to diversify supply chains and secure alternative sources of critical materials [2].

Fossil Fuels in the Emerging Global Order

While REEs capture headlines in high-tech sectors, fossil fuels remain a cornerstone of economic and geopolitical power [8]. Central proven oil and natural gas reserves in regions like Canada, China, Venezuela, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Iran, Turkey, Norway, various African nations, and the Arab world continue to shape alliance patterns and trade flows [8][9]. For instance, OPEC+ production decisions can ripple global markets, influencing everything from inflation rates to diplomatic leverage [9]. According to BP’s latest estimates, the world’s proven natural gas reserves could sustain consumption for approximately 50 years [9]. This abundant yet finite supply underpins critical industries and strategic relationships; countries blessed with rich hydrocarbon deposits often wield substantial influence in multilateral negotiations [10].

Even as the clean energy transition accelerates, oil and gas demand remains robust, particularly in emerging markets. Yet balancing hydrocarbon revenues with climate goals has become a significant policy challenge. Governments across the globe—whether in oil-exporting states like Saudi Arabia or gas-rich regions of Africa—face mounting pressure to diversify their economies and reduce dependence on fossil exports [8]. Conversely, consumer nations weigh energy security against environmental obligations, seeking stable supply while pursuing carbon neutrality targets [9]. This tension makes fossil fuels an integral part of the new global order, where traditional energy superpowers and rising renewable champions must navigate a complex interplay of markets, regulations, and diplomacy [10].

REEs in a New World Order

Defining Superpower Status

Just as oil shaped 20th-century geopolitics, control of REEs could define global power in the 21st century [6]. Nations with stable rare earth supply chains will lead in high-tech manufacturing and defence capabilities, while those lacking access risk economic and security vulnerabilities [7]. China, by maintaining dominance in REE processing, wields a potent tool of economic statecraft that can deter adversaries.

Risk of Resource-Driven Conflict

Global demand for REEs is surging, fueling fears of “resource wars.” Although outright military clashes over REEs remain unlikely, coercive trade measures and zero-sum resource grabs may escalate tensions [3][6]. Nations holding large, untapped deposits could become flashpoints if foreign investors and local governments clash over extraction rights [5].

Emerging Alliances and Technological Innovation

In response to China’s near monopoly, the U.S. and its allies have formed initiatives like the Minerals Security Partnership to develop new sources and processing plants in friendly nations [5]. This evolving landscape might result in a bifurcation of supply chains: one led by China (potentially partnered with Russia), and another by the U.S., EU, and allied states [4]. Long-term recycling and substitute materials innovation could mitigate these tensions by reducing dependence on virgin REEs [2][7].

Conclusion

Rare earth elements have shifted from obscure commodities to a focal point of 21st-century geopolitics [6]. The U.S.-China-Russia triangle underscores that REE access equates to strategic power, influencing diplomatic leverage, defence readiness, and industrial competitiveness [1][7]. Meanwhile, fossil fuels continue to undergird many global alliances, with vast oil and natural gas reserves shaping economic resilience and foreign policy [8][9]. As seen in President Trump’s contentious attempt to secure Ukrainian resources, these dynamics can strain alliances and reorder global alignments [2]. Whether the competition evolves into deeper conflict or spurs cooperative innovation depends on the major powers' political cho