Sweeping tariffs means the new administration is prioritizing national security but this leaves the U.S. energy sector alarmingly vulnerable and could slow global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Although the Trump’s administration emphasizes gas and oil production, it is clear the rest of the world is transitioning to clean energy sources. Investments in fossil fuels will have the United States lagging in the global energy race. Fossil fuels are the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which science has proven worsens global warming.
Energy policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act signed into effect by the previous administration, have led to progress in our nation’s clean energy manufacturing, clean vehicle tax credits and home energy efficiency. Federal funding allocated toward clean energy research has also allowed American companies to expand and to secure more foreign investors. Amidst the global energy race, the current proposed tariffs will jeopardize progress the United States has made by stifling supply chains. Potential markets could be lost as the manufacturing of renewable energy is heavily reliant on global trade and supply chains. The proposed tariffs will raise the manufacturing costs of American-made solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles and wind turbines — leaving countries to buy cheaper foreign exports instead of American-made renewable energy products.
Aside from tariffs, halts on climate funds will affect countless Americans. These funds are often directed toward construction projects that help low-income Americans repair their homes, install solar panels or complete energy-efficient upgrades. Funding also includes efforts to help communities most affected by climate change and pollution. Without federal funding and the administration’s support, states will be left to tackle the climate crisis alone, further stretching their resources to expand the state’s climate efforts and energy portfolios. Aside from the illegal mass firings of thousands of employees from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, thousands of workers are being left jobless with the stalling and halting of climate funds.
The withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement on Inauguration Day underscores how the United States has further politicalized climate change as a strategizing tool for political parties rather than prioritizing it as a serious problem that puts our health, economy and planet in danger. As years of environmental regulation, progress and policies continue to be dismantled, Americans are left vulnerable not only to the lasting implications of the climate crisis, but also to the overstepped limits of presidential power as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
Americans need to advocate for abundance rather than scarcity by building more of what people need: housing, transit, clean energy and public goods. Speak up at local city council meetings, join coalitions, advocate for infrastructure and clean energy projects, and vote in local elections.
Eileen Liu is a senior at Menlo-Atherton High School in Atherton. Student News appears in the weekend edition. You can email Student News at news@smdailyjournal.com.
(9) comments
I get my comments deleted for bringing up the fact this author is a high school student and knows nothing about Tariffs. I import STEEL from China and other countries - but the moderator thinks my opinion does not matter. This site is going down the toilet.
Miss Liu - I miss your originality in this week's column. Just about everything you describe appears copied from other publications. In case you are not aware, the Paris Climate Accord has not prodded any of the signatories to reduce their carbon footprint. As is common with these efforts, it is all talk and no substance. All of those countries are still seeing increases in CO2 emissions. The current efforts by the Trump administration to halt much of the superfluous, mindless projects and programs that you seem to support, will, help you once you start paying taxes. If you were to dig into what these programs and projects really accomplish, you find out very soon that they were designed to employ as many self-appointed experts as possible and feather the nests of Democrat cronies. As the new EPA and HHS administrations are discovering, there is no accountability and no tangible results. Your generation would pay the tab if this debt-ridden nonsense is not curtailed.
Dirk, I noticed the same thing- the line about advocating for "Abundance" is from Ezra Klein's recent book of that title where he is trying to rebrand the Democratic party. I admire our young people who write the DJ columns but I hope Eileen and others are relying too much on AI instead of their original thoughts and ideas.
Thanks for your column today, Ms. Liu. It should be noted that over 80% of global energy is supplied from fossil fuels. Although some countries are reducing their fossil fuel usage, larger countries are increasing their fossil fuel consumption, such as China, India, developing (and developed) countries. Some countries may use clean energy sources and if they have taxpayers that want to support them, go for it. As long as they remember the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. For other countries, no matter how much they attempt to transition to clean energy, they won’t transition quickly or at all if “clean” energy isn’t cost-effective or reliable.
For being people that claim GHG emissions don't matter, the American right surely always has wrong statistics handy.
The good news is that of the 10 largest total GHG emitters, the U.S. is still number one.
- US - on average every American is emitting 18t or almost 3x global average
- Russia, South Korea, Iran emit around 12-13t CO2 per person or 2x global average
- China has caught up with Japan at around 9t per capita
- Indonesia, Brazil and the EU are averaging around 7t per person, which is still slightly above world average
- Number 10 on the list is India with 2.5t - the only one far below the global average
And yes you are correct a lot of these countries have found ways to make their GHG emissions look smaller whereas China's and India's contributions are going up. This has two major reasons:
1. The US and the EU have outsourced a lot of their production capacity to China and India, which means these countries are "creating" the CO2, but if we looked at who is "consuming" these products it is still the US and the EU.
2. Another big source of the growing GHG emissions in China and India are the growing fossil fuel car and moped industry their.
Just like in the US, fossil fueled cars are one of the biggest problems for creating air pollution and GHG emissions in India. With more wealth people become more lazy and don't want to walk or bike anymore. Snowflakery exists there as well.
easygerd - you forget to multiply the output per person. India and China count over 2 billion people, whereas we are a bit over 340 million. Indonesia and Brazil together count more than 500 million inhabitants. Who does counting GHG anyway? This entire bean counting exercise is futile and flies in the face of the progress that we are actually making in this country, while all of the others are paying lip service. If India and China installed cleaner fossil based engines like we do here, they would not have the pollution. They could actually learn from Japan as well. And lastly, what percentage of the population in China and India has a vehicle?
Dirk, let's not forget that a lot of the products produced in China are only produced to satisfy U.S. consumerism.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If we - in the eyes of our gods we - are all considered equal then our GHG emissions need to be considered per capita.
The U.S. is still producing three times the international average and if we consider all the products shipped from East Asia to U.S. consumers it is even way more than that.
For the last 20 years it has been said that the U.S. is responsible for 25% of the global GHG emissions with only 5% of the global population.
eGerd – TBot here. It sounds like you agree that fossil fuels will continue to be around since “clean” energy isn’t cost-effective or reliable. And thanks for pointing out that the US is “exporting” their GHGs to other locales. Kind of like the Bay Area mandating electrification and assuming they’re saving the world when all they’re doing is virtue signaling while exporting their GHGs to California’s fossil fuel burning electrical generation facilities.
Exactly, San Mateo Democrats are king in pretending to be green, but look what they have done to their public transit system (Senator Dave Cortese wants to audit MTC, because commissioners incl. David Canepa and Gina Papan were overseeing a slush fund)
And while they build new highway lanes (also Gina Papan) and bigger intersections to create more congestion - they also take down the only affordable transportation we have: Bike Lanes.
The push for electrification is only necessary so the electricity can be "greenwashed" by PCE through New Mexico windfarms. And PG&E is sending consumers the bill for building out the high voltage routes.
As long as the county is missing bus lanes, bike lanes, wind turbines along the coast their credibility stays at zero, null, zilch, nada, ....
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.