A Generational Setback for Environmental Movement: NY Times
NY Times published a summary of the stunning impacts Trump 2.0 is having on the biggest environmental and climate-related organizations. We need to face reality, but we cannot become cynical and give up. Here are some of the key points made:
Actions by the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress have set the environmental movement back years, activists said. Chief among them has been the passage of Mr. Trump’s domestic policy bill, which curtailed many of the core elements of the Inflation Reduction Act.
“With one election and one bill, most of the signature climate work that organizations, advocates and movements have been working toward is largely undone,” said Ruthy Gourevitch, a policy director at the Climate and Community Institute, a progressive research organization.
Not all is lost. Some large organizations are fighting in court:
the Natural Resources Defense Council, …was redoubling its efforts in state and federal courts and expanding its advocacy at the state level and internationally.
,,,
Earthjustice has opened 96 legal actions against the Trump administration this year, including lawsuits as well as technical comments on proposed regulatory changes. …
It has had some wins. On Thursday, a federal judge in Washington ordered the Agriculture Department to reinstate grants for farmers and nonprofits that had been terminated. The groups were represented by Earthjustice and two other legal nonprofits, FarmSTAND and Farmers Justice Center.
But some groups aren't winning:
Greenpeace lost a lawsuit in March after being sued over allegations it defamed Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. ..Greenpeace now faces the prospect of nearly $670 million in damages if it loses on appeal, with its U.S. arm responsible for the vast majority of that amount.
At the same time, the Sierra Club and three other environmental groups are facing a defamation lawsuit by Exxon Mobil in federal court in Texas.
Some big donors are responding by shifting their focus:
Breakthrough Energy, the Bill Gates-backed group focused on promoting clean energy, shuttered its D.C. lobbying shop in March, laying off staff and cutting off funding for a number of related groups.
Mr. Gates is investing directly in climate technology, including a next generation nuclear plant in Wyoming that would generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. He declined to comment.
Tom Steyer…said the lesson of the 2024 election is that the public wants solutions that have immediate economic effects. “If we want to win, we need a fundamental recalibration,” Mr. Steyer recently wrote on Facebook. “Climate can no longer be a separate cause. It must be the context for making people’s lives better. It has to feel like relief. Like opportunity.” For example, he wrote, clean energy must mean lower electric bills.
Mr. Steyer, through his investment firm, Galvanize, is also putting his money into clean energy projects and said he invests differently than other climate donors. “We’re not funding any suits,” he said, referring to legal challenges against the Trump administration. “We are basically trying to create better things that provide tangible benefits now.”
A few comments on this piece, particularly the doom and gloom “recruiting“ message by donor-funded NGOs, parroted uncritically by the NYT staff.
We in CCL have a more nuanced view, repeated by Dana just yesterday. Many Republican MOCs understand energy policy, appreciate the contribution of wind and solar power as part of a diverse energy mix, and are clawing back the extremes of Trump’s policies, thanks in part to our lobbying efforts. IRA wind and solar projects will be only moderately reduced over the next four years; the pace of US decarbonization is faster now than four years ago.
As a non-partisan actor, CCL has a unique opportunity to partner with Republicans on improving America’s prospects for creating a clean, reliable and affordable energy future.
Permitting reform, energy transmission, nuclear, and geothermal power may have better prospects in a Republican administration than in a Democratic coalition, where litigious Far Left NGOs resist the NEPA reform needed to begin a transition.
Note: The article mentions the Bill Gates -funded Breakthrough Energy. This organization is NOT the Breakthrough Institute / Ecomodernist, a bipartisan think tank which is a natural ally of CCL.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency