If the 70 degree weather in autumn was not alarming enough, the government cancelling $7 billion in renewable energy should be.
The funding pause will not only impair progress toward sustainable solutions, but also reveal the systematic minimization of environmental conscientiousness.
On Oct. 5, The U.S. Department of Energy terminated more than 321 financial awards across 223 renewable and clean energy projects, rounding up to $7.6 billion in funding.
In Massachusetts alone, the state estimates $466 million in terminated awards — more than two dozen projects tied to climate active and clean energy initiatives. Governor Maura Healey condemned the move as a “vindictive action,” that will “harm all of our residents.”
Among the sites cracked down by the Bureau of Land Management was the Esmeralda 7 in Nevada, which is by far one of the largest in the world. Covering more than 185 square miles, this super plant under seven companies produces “6.2 gigawatts of [solar powered] energy, enough to power nearly 2 [million] homes.”
When asked to comment, the US Department of the Interior said the sites may submit individual appeals to the Bureau of Land Management, but the joint proposal permitted under the Biden administration will no longer be supported by federal funds.
“These decisions are made – business decisions on whether it’s a good use of the taxpayer money or not. So, no, these projects will not be restored,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said. “We’ve got to save Americans money.”
The financial trade-off, however, seems insignificant and outright frivolous.
Putting things in perspective, the $7.6 billion cut from clean energy represents less than 1% of the Department of Defense’s $850 billion annual budget, but it also addresses an immediate and escalating global crisis.
For instance, researchers at Penn State University have found that trees are now struggling to “breathe” in warmer climates. Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen, trees in hotter, drier environments are twice as likely to send CO2 back into the atmosphere through a process known as photorespiration.
Simply put, the global reservoir of natural carbon sinks are no longer sufficient to reverse the effects of increasing carbon emissions. Yet amid pressing concerns for a habitable planet, climate action projects such as Esmeralda 7— which aim to combat, or at least mitigate, the threat of global warming — have shut down their operations with little to no warning.
What climate skeptics fail to acknowledge is that there is no refund for a habitable planet. Natural disasters and extreme weather would not stop because a committee in Washington decided renewable energy was too expensive this quarter. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States has already spent more than $2.6 trillion on climate-related disasters since 1980, a cost that is accelerating every decade. If anything, the long-term effects of climate inaction will eventually overshadow any short-term budget relief.
Earth is a sentient, breathing body that humans must learn to live in harmony with, not claim or exploit. Cutting funding for clean energy does not save taxpayers money; it is a stepping stone toward a catastrophe far greater than any person can handle.
This article appeared in Vol. LX, Issue V, published Oct. 27, 2025.