The High Price of Know-Nothing Policy:
How the New Budget Bill Undermines Energy Security, the Economy, and Climate Resilience
I hope you’ve noticed by now that at The Instigator, we make a concerted effort to maintain a constructive, non-partisan, and non-alarmist point of view. We want to get as many people on our side as possible. We try to focus on pragmatism over politics—how to get things done in ways that really work and will endure.
But that’s a tough task this week.
On the same day that we witnessed devastating flooding in Texas and tragic loss of life, our political leaders passed a budget bill that doesn’t just lock in more climate disasters—it's a masterclass in self-sabotage.
The bill’s most profound impacts are likely in the realm of health care, the budget deficit, and excessive immigration control, but we’ll leave that for those experts to unpack.
When it comes to the issues we write about, the prognosis is not much better. The bill ignores economic reality, global competition, and the basic science of climate risk.
One reason this is so disheartening is that there were, in fact, some good opportunities to improve climate-related policies so that they would better align with economic challenges, appeal to a broader constituency, and work more effectively. We may have been a little naive, but we expected at least some red state leaders to fight for things like: clean energy incentives that boosted local economies, federal efforts to monitor and address weather-related disasters, and research programs that aim to mitigate the severe threats their children and grandchildren will face.
That didn’t happen.
At the risk of stating the obvious, here are three big reasons why we believe the bill is a bad one for America and for the rest of the world.
A. The bill makes energy more expensive and more scarce.
The legislation repeals many clean energy tax credits, adds excise taxes and restrictions on renewable energy projects, and boosts fossil fuels. (You can read the full details in virtually any reputable news outlet, including here, here, and here.)
Is there room for debate about the best policies to support the energy sector while pursuing climate progress? Of course. But we did not see much of that.
Instead we got a bill that promises the following outcomes:
Higher electricity prices. Wholesale electricity prices are projected to rise 19% by 2030 and 61% by 2035, with consumer rates increasing by 9–16%. Some households could see their annual bills jump by hundreds of dollars by 2035.
Less capacity. Modeling suggests the U.S. will lose about 300 gigawatts of new electricity generation capacity by 2035—primarily from wind and solar—just as demand is surging due to AI and data center growth.
Job losses and slower growth. The rollback of renewables is expected to eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, reduce investment, and shrink U.S. GDP growth.
But it doesn’t stop there. It also hurts us vis-à-vis our global competitors and adversaries.
While our leaders keep pretending we live in a world in which climate is not a challenge (“climate change is a hoax”), China is doubling down on clean energy, investing in manufacturing and grid expansion. By making our own energy more expensive and less reliable, we’re ceding industrial competitiveness and technological leadership to our biggest rival.
How does any of that make sense?
B. The bill undermines climate resilience and research.
The bill also slashes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s workforce and budget for climate research, weather labs, and regional data centers. That means less funding for extreme weather tools like tracking, forecasting, and responding to various and sundry weather ailments, such as hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and heat waves.
This means:
Reduced early warning. Less research means less accurate and timely information for communities facing extreme weather. The U.S. will have fewer tools to anticipate, prepare for, and mitigate disasters.
Weaker climate adaptation. Local and state governments, businesses, and farmers will be flying blind—without the data and forecasts they need to make smart decisions about infrastructure, insurance, and disaster response.
Forsaken global leadership. As the world faces escalating climate risks, the U.S. is pulling back from the front lines of science and innovation. That’s not just bad for the planet—it’s bad for business, security, and America’s standing in the world.
C. The bill has long-term implications for emissions reductions and global leadership.
By slashing support for clean energy and cutting funding for climate science and resilience, the bill has profound and lasting effects on climate change.
1. It will be harder to cut emissions.
Fewer clean energy projects. With tax credits and incentives for renewables rolled back, we can expect the pace of wind, solar, and battery deployment to slow dramatically. This means the U.S. will burn more fossil fuels for longer, directly increasing emissions at a time when we desperately need rapid reductions.
Stalled innovation. Budget cuts to research agencies like NOAA and the Department of Energy choke off the development of next-generation clean technologies. This makes it harder to decarbonize sectors like heavy industry, transportation, and agriculture.
Lost momentum. The U.S. had begun to make real progress in reducing emissions, but these policy reversals risk reversing those gains, making it far less likely that the country will meet its own climate targets.
2. Our global influence will be weakened.
Credibility gap. The U.S. has long played an important (but inconsistent) leadership role in international climate negotiations. As the world sees us backsliding again—cutting support for clean energy and climate science—we of course lose credibility and leverage with other nations.
Lost economic opportunities. As China, the EU, and others double down on clean energy, the U.S. risks being left behind in the industries of the future, from renewables to electric vehicles to green hydrogen. This not only hurts the U.S. economy but also weakens its ability to shape global markets and standards. How exactly do we expect GM and Ford to compete successfully with China’s EV producers?
Rising global emissions. Again, this is another kind of obvious point—when the world’s historically largest emitter abandons its own climate efforts, it provides cover for others to do the same. Obviously this makes it much harder to reach the global emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
3. We’ll lock in devastating climate change.
Rising risk of disaster. Every year of delay in cutting emissions increases the likelihood of breaching critical climate thresholds, locking in even more severe heat waves, droughts, floods, and sea level rise than what we’re currently witnessing. Of course now we don’t have to wait and worry only about weather-related disasters in some distant future. Think about the past 12 months: LA fires, Texas floods, Florida hurricanes, and widespread heat waves. Is that enough disaster for you?
Human and economic toll. The suffering that comes with unchecked climate change—lost lives, destroyed communities, economic upheaval—will fall hardest on the most vulnerable, both in the U.S. and around the world.
Narrow window of action. The world is simply running out of time to act. Policies that slow or reverse progress now will have consequences for decades to come, making it much harder to stabilize the climate and protect future generations.
This budget bill is not just shortsighted—it’s reckless. It raises energy costs, slows economic growth, and weakens our ability to compete with China. It guts the very agencies and tools we need to protect lives and property from extreme weather. And it risks locking in a future of escalating climate disasters and missed opportunities, both at home and abroad. In a world where information, innovation, and resilience are everything, this is know-nothing policy at its worst.
America (and the rest of the world) deserves better.
But—true to our normal practices—we can see a hint of a silver lining. This bill is so bad, it might just catalyze political action. Even my friends who generally support the current administration can’t find the words—or the heart—to defend this bill. I don’t blame them.
The current administration and Congress own it, and it’s on us to get to work and make sure all voters know it.
Let’s work hard to turn all of this around. The best way to deal with the gloom and doom that accompanies policies like this budget is to roll up your sleeves and get to work. It won’t only make you feel better, it likely will lead to better outcomes. We all have more opportunity to do something than we often think.
Our approach—again, true to form—is to get people to understand that there are effective science-based and economy-friendly ways to pursue climate progress that a majority of citizens should be pleased to support. Such policies and programs are not cost-free, but, relative to the costs of doing nothing, will save us a lot of money. Plus they have secondary benefits: they bolster innovation, reduce tragic outcomes, and address injustice. Political leaders who don’t support such common-sense measures should be made to understand that they will be fired if they don’t get with the program.
You might have different ideas on how best to make progress now. Good. The more ideas, the better. Please talk this up in your communities. Reach out and discuss these challenges and opportunities with your neighbors and friends. And share your ideas on how we move forward in the best way.
Onward,
