The Trump administration put the brakes on $3.7 billion in grants directed towards purported climate-friendly initiatives, a majority of which had been hastily handed out during the twilight of the Biden administration, following his loss in the 2024 elections. Energy Secretary Chris Wright declared on a Friday that the 24 experimental projects would not serve the energy needs of the American people, lacked economic feasibility, and wouldn’t yield a positive return on taxpayers’ hard-earned money.
The Energy Department shed light on its decision, citing comprehensive individual financial assessments of each award as the basis. The department revealed staggering facts: Roughly 70% of these expensive awards (amounting to 16 out of the 24 projects) were inexplicably allotted between the date of the election, November 5, and the end of Biden’s term on January 20.
These lucrative grants were primarily earmarked for programs enthusiastically promoting carbon capture and underground storage, an evidently favored subject of the former administration. Other efforts pushed forth under the same attempt included cleaner cement manufacture, natural gas, and more.
This decision unfolded against a backdrop of the Trump administration’s drive to review and, where necessary, rectify some of Biden’s controversial and questionable decisions on so-called climate protection and clean energy. These decisions seemed driven more by political considerations and less by proven economic or environmental benefit.
The previous Biden administration was reckless in performing any serious financial scrutiny before committing billions from the public coffers. In contrast, the Trump administration takes its stewardship of taxpayers’ money seriously, ensuring it strengthens our national security, bolsters affordable and reliable energy sources, and generates maximum returns.
In pursuance of the well-being of the American citizens, the Trump administration is pulling the plug on these 24 ambitious yet flawed projects. These include a significant $332 million retraction from a program at ExxonMobil’s Baytown refinery complex in Texas, a weighty $500 million from Heidelberg Materials in Louisiana, and another $375 million from Eastman Chemical in Texas.
The widely-acclaimed concept of carbon capture or carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a mitigation tool, allegedly designed to stop CO2 emissions from tainting the atmosphere or from the harmful emissions of industrial facilities such as refineries, coal power plants, and ethanol producers by storing them underground.
Climate change enthusiasts insist these carbon emissions, much of it caused by human activity, are responsible for global warming. The Trump administration, on the other hand, has challenged this heavily marketed yet minimally proven theory and has often criticized the Green New Deal policies, dubbed by him as the ‘Green New Scam’.
These progressive policies, aggressively promoted by left-leaning Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are painted as saviors of the environment but often come at an enormous cost to the economy, job market, and the average working American citizen.
Despite this reasoned approach to responsible fiscal policy, environmental groups with a narrow focus on energy have created an outcry. For instance, Steven Nadel, the head of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, lamented the decision, calling it short-sighted and an inhibitor to innovation.
However, one could question if chaining domestic industries to unproven and costly technologies is the right way to boost competitiveness or rejuvenate manufacturing jobs in American towns and cities.
One report by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions hypothesized that the cancellation of these projects, supposedly prototypes for large-scale industrial programs, could lead to the loss of 25,000 jobs and $4.6 billion in economic output. However, these projections often fail to take into account the money saved by not trying to fix what isn’t broken.
The Trump administration’s decision came on the heels of a sweeping review, initiated by the Energy Department to root out wasteful expenditure, safeguard the national security, and put forth President Trump’s commitment to provide affordable, secure, and reliable energy for all Americans.
This acts as a fitting example of how the Trump administration prioritizes fiscal responsibility, the well-being of American citizens, and the nation’s energy needs, over unproven, politically-driven, and costly initiatives.