
Trump is Undoing Climate Action. Can Clean Energy Investments Survive?
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
You've probably heard of the old curse that goes, "May you live in interesting times." These are certainly interesting times for those in the clean tech and climate solutions sectors.
With the passage of his "big beautiful" bill this month, President Donald Trump has eliminated many of the federal government incentives that had triggered hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in clean energy, batteries, EVs and other climate solutions over the past three years.
The Trump administration has pulled the U.S. out of international climate agreements and scrapped regulations on emissions from autos and the power sector in an attempt to steer the energy economy back to reliance on fossil fuels.
But the whiplash-inducing U-turn on energy policy in the U.S. is starkly at odds with signals from the broader energy market. In the U.S., renewable energy now accounts for about 90 percent of the new electricity capacity being added to the grid as wind, solar and batteries have become the cheapest and fastest sources of new power.
In the series "Climate Investing in a Volatile Climate" we'll hear from leading climate tech investors about how they are navigating the rapid shifts in U.S. policy and the energy markets.
In the series "Climate Investing in a Volatile Climate" we'll hear from leading climate tech investors about how they are navigating the rapid shifts in U.S. policy and the energy markets.
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva
Globally, the International Energy Agency reported that the capital flowing into low-carbon energy sources this year is roughly twice that going into fossil fuel development, raising the specter that the U.S. is turning its back on one of the world's fastest-growing new industries.
Add to all that the impacts of tariffs and trade wars, and you have a period of unparalleled uncertainty for clean tech companies and the investors who back them. Interesting times indeed.
Better Planet asked some leading clean tech and climate solutions investors how they are making sense of this shifting landscape and what they see ahead for a series we're calling "Climate Investing in a Volatile Climate."
In this first installment, we'll hear from Johanna Wolfson, co-founder and general partner at Azolla Ventures, a climate-focused venture capital fund, and Peter Davidson, founder and CEO at Aligned Climate Capital, an asset management company focused on companies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Both Wolfson and Davidson told Newsweek that Trump's sudden policy shifts on energy will slow, but not stop investment, and both predicted that the strong economic arguments for clean tech will still attract capital.
"We are seeing signs of a coming pull back from other venture capital firms in clean tech," Wolfson said. Climate investing won't dry up altogether, she said, but newer companies and emerging technologies with higher risk will likely find it harder to attract capital. Her advice to clean tech companies: "Hunker down, do the work, build the solutions, and be ready," she said.
Davidson said that even before the Republican-led Congress voted to phase out clean energy tax credits, the atmosphere of uncertainty was already causing companies to cancel or scale back some announced projects.
"You can get depressed about that or you can continue the fight," Davidson said. Despite political headwinds, he said, market forces are working in favor of clean energy.
"It's gotten complicated because you have to avoid things that are reliant on federal tax policy," Davidson said. "But there are plenty of companies out there, many projects out there, that we think are still highly investable and can earn a very good return."
'It's a Big World' for Climate Investors
Wolfson described Azolla Ventures as a "catalytic capital" firm that invests in early-stage climate technologies, using capital sourced mainly from tax-exempt foundations and donor-advised funds. This allows Azolla to prioritize positive climate impact when deciding what companies to back.
"We're taking on outsized risk and maybe doing that at an earlier time or in a different way than even other climate-oriented venture funds might be willing," she said. "We're looking for giga-scale impact."
One budding success story, she said, is the low-carbon cement company Sublime Systems. Azolla was an early backer, and Sublime recently signed a deal with Microsoft that is the largest procurement deal for clean cement to date.
Azolla's approach also assumes a long lead time for nascent clean technologies to develop, she explained, a mindset that is less susceptible to shifting political winds.
"When we're evaluating companies for investment, we're looking at market growth and emissions avoided out to 2050," Wolfson said. "That's a lot longer than a four-year administration."
Wolfson said some clean energy sources are still well-positioned to benefit under Trump policy, such as new nuclear technology and geothermal energy, which she expects to grow rapidly as major tech companies race to procure steady power for AI data centers.
However, she said that as U.S. leadership retreats from climate action, much of the rest of the world is moving ahead, and investment dollars are likely to follow.
"It's a big world," Wolfson said. Some companies Azolla works with are now looking to pilot new projects outside of the U.S., and her firm is supporting them to integrate into other markets. "We should go to where the early adopters are, and if that continues to shift, then those companies should shift with it."
Overall, Wolfson said, she is "deeply concerned" about the lack of global progress on climate goals. That makes Azolla more interested in early-stage support for "big swing" technologies that have potential for large-scale emissions cuts.
"They're going to have to shoulder more of the emissions avoided since we're not keeping track with the desired reduction," she said. Azolla is also looking at more investment in adaptation and resilience solutions to help society better deal with climate change impacts that are happening now.
"They're going to accelerate," she said of climate-driven extreme weather events. "We've essentially baked that in."
An Energy Policy 'Reckoning is Coming'
Before launching Aligned Climate Capital, Peter Davidson had worked on funding energy projects in the Department of Energy (DOE), where he directed the DOE's Loan Programs Office under President Barack Obama and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
That long history with the public and private sectors informs his view of what Trump 2.0 means for clean tech investment.
"We've seen this movie before, because we were in this business during Trump One," Davidson said. "And during his entire first term, renewable deployment was never higher, EV deployment was never higher, corporate commitment to clean energy was never higher. So, we see the same things happening here."
Aligned's most recent round of funding concluded in March with $85 million, double the previous round and higher than the company's target, Davidson said. The company's main focus is investing in proven technologies that can rapidly scale, and supporting construction of distributed power generation such as community and mid-sized solar projects—what Davidson called the "quiet workhorse" of the clean energy transition.
Contractors install solar photovoltaic modules on top of a department store roof in Hamilton Township, New Jersey.
Contractors install solar photovoltaic modules on top of a department store roof in Hamilton Township, New Jersey."They're big enough for meaningful impact, but you avoid the red tape of utility-scale development," he said.
Recent data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shows that even amid the Trump administration's assault on climate action, solar (often paired with battery storage) remains the favored way to add power as electricity demand rises.
In the first four months of this year, FERC data showed, solar accounted for 78 percent of new capacity. Looking ahead, FERC expects about 90 gigawatts of new solar to come online in the coming three years, compared to only 19 gigawatts of new gas-fired power. Coal-fired power is expected to drop further with the retirements of several older facilities.
"The energy transition is underway and it's unstoppable," Davidson said. Even with the reduced tax credits, he argued, solar generation is still cheaper to build than natural gas, and supply chain backlogs for gas turbines mean many gas projects will likely be delayed.
"So, anything that's going to be built in the United States over the next five years is what we're doing, mid-size, or the large, utility scale, wind and solar," Davidson said.
However, renewable energy will not grow as fast as it would have with continued tax credits and other government support. The existing fleet of natural gas power plants will be taking up a lot of the coming demand for electricity at the same time that the Trump administration is promoting more exports of liquified natural gas. That points to a nearly inevitable rise in energy prices, Davidson said.
Most independent analyses of the "big beautiful" budget bill Trump signed on July 4 show sharp increases in energy costs. Analysts at Rhodium Group estimate the law will increase national average household energy bills by at least $78 and as much as $192 while forcing total industrial energy expenditures up by at least $7 billion. (Industrial energy costs also tend to get passed along to consumers via higher prices for goods and services.)
Davidson predicted that rising energy prices will bring a political backlash.
"Eventually there'll be a correction at the polls," he said. "We believe a reckoning is coming, and when that happens, it will bring a little more sense and sensibility into our energy policy."
We'll have more conversations with climate investors in the weeks leading up to Climate Week NYC in September, when Newsweek will host events on energy and the green transition. Mark your calendars for our events "Pillars of the Green Transition" on Wednesday, September 24, and "Powering Ahead" on Thursday, September 25.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Atlantic
25 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Censorship for Citizenship
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Not that long ago, believe it or not, Donald Trump ran for president as the candidate who would defend the First Amendment. He warned that a 'sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media' was 'conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people,' and promised that 'by restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.' On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order affirming the 'right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech.' If anyone believed him at the time, they should be disabused by now. One of his most brazen attacks on freedom of speech thus far came this past weekend, when the president said that he was thinking about stripping a comedian of her citizenship—for no apparent reason other than that she regularly criticizes him. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her,' he posted on Truth Social. This must have been exhilarating to O'Donnell, who received a brief new grant of relevance and told the Irish broadcaster RTE, 'I am very proud to be opposed to every single thing he says and does and represents.' But once the exhilaration subsides, the fundamental idea is very disturbing: Trump appears to view both free speech and U.S. citizenship as conditional, things he can revoke based on his own whims. Writing off the threat to O'Donnell as just another instance of Trumpian trolling—or an attempt to distract from fatal flooding in Texas, dozens of incomplete trade deals, or intramural MAGA battles over Jeffrey Epstein —is tempting. And the odds that Trump would actually successfully strip O'Donnell of her passport seem slim. But that doesn't mean the threat is irrelevant. What in particular set Trump off here is unclear—he and O'Donnell have been feuding for years—but by all indications, the answer is simply that she has exercised her freedom of speech to jab him. Perhaps this should go without saying, but native-born American citizens like O'Donnell generally cannot be stripped of their citizenship. (Citizens can, however, choose to relinquish their citizenship—something that has become a somewhat popular option for people wishing to avoid U.S. taxes, including former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a New York native.) A president can't just decide that he wants to take it away. In other recent cases where the Trump administration has attempted to suppress speech, officials have at least claimed that they have evidence of criminality (though that's not to say even that was a legitimate standard; such accusations are also dangerous, and judges have dismissed them). With O'Donnell, Trump isn't even pretending she has crossed some sort of criminal line. He's also not (yet) taking action, but Trump often uses initially brash and outlandish threats as a way to acclimate the populace to his overreaching, as I wrote in the January 2024 issue of The Atlantic: 'When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they'll also shrug and wonder why he didn't do it sooner. After all, he's been promising to do it forever, right?' I wish this argument had aged worse. Trump has begun talking more frequently about revoking citizenship as a means of punishing political speech. He has mused about using the tool against political opponents, including the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, alleging potential fraud, and his former buddy Elon Musk, who had the temerity to insult him. Both of these men are naturalized, which makes their citizenship marginally easier to remove—though, again, not for simple speech. The administration has also been pursuing denaturalizations of citizens whom it believes it can prove lied on their application, which is an established legal basis for stripping their legal status. Even if Trump doesn't normalize taking away citizenship, he is continuing to entrench the idea that the government—or, really, just the president on his own—can punish citizens who criticize it, or him. That's been one of the most prominent themes of his term so far: He has banished the Associated Press from some White House spaces simply for refusing to adopt his preferred terminology, extorted law firms that employed lawyers involved in the criminal cases against him, and demanded huge payouts from news organizations. He'll continue as long as he's successful. 'If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country,' Trump said in a campaign video posted in 2022. 'It's as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They'll go down.' Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News President Donald Trump announced a new weapons-transfer plan for Ukraine and threatened to impose high tariffs on Russia if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with dismantling the Education Department and firing nearly 1,400 workers. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration for withholding more than $6.8 billion in education funding, which helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs and assistance for students learning English. Dispatches Evening Read The AI Mirage By Ian Bogost 'I'm not going to respond to that,' Siri responded. I had just cursed at it, and this was my passive-aggressive chastisement. The cursing was, in my view, warranted. I was in my car, running errands, and had found myself in an unfamiliar part of town. I requested 'directions to Lowe's,' hoping to get routed to the big-box hardware store without taking my eyes off the road. But apparently Siri didn't understand. 'Which Lowe?' it asked, before displaying a list of people with the surname Lowe in my address book … The latest version of Siri has 'better conversational context'—the sort of thing that should help the software know when I'm asking to be guided to the home-improvement store rather than to a guy called Lowe. But my iPhone apparently isn't new enough for this update. I would need cutting-edge artificial intelligence to get directions to Lowe's. More From The Atlantic Read. Alert the incels! The rest of us love Pamela Anderson, and we will always love her, Caitlin Flanagan writes. Let go. And let your kid climb that tree, Henry Abbott writes. It could actually make them safer. Play our daily crossword.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco
President Donald Trump has sought to calm growing divisions within his political base by defending Attorney General Pam Bondi and dismissing renewed scrutiny over the handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. Trump took to social media over the weekend and posted to support Bondi, writing that Bondi is 'doing a FANTASTIC JOB!' Trump claimed in his post that the Epstein 'client list,' which has recently been claimed nonexistent by the Department of Justice (DOJ), was created by previous Democratic leaders. 'For years, it's Epstein, over and over again. Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration…' wrote the President. 'They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called 'friends' are playing right into their hands. Why didn't these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn't they use it?' Trump also berated a reporter last week when asked about the handling of the Epstein documents, indicating that more important things were to be focused on than Epstein. 'And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?' Trump questioned. 'That is unbelievable.' These statements from the President come shortly after a joint memo from the DOJ and FBI claiming that there is no evidence supporting conspiracy theories about Epstein's death or the existence of a so-called 'client list.' However, the claims made by the FBI and DOJ directly contradict Bondi's previous statement, in which she claimed to have the client list ready for review. 'It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump,' she said in February when asked about the client list. Bondi has since attempted to clarify these comments, claiming that she meant to review more than just Epstein's files. 'I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed – meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that,' she explained, per CNN. Despite the attempt at clarification, many political activists have now called for changes within the Trump administration. 'Blondi [sic] has been very DAMAGING to the admin and she has damaged public trust in the DOJ. She is hurting President Trump and his staff/advisors,' wrote Laura Loomer on social media. 'She lied on national TV and needs to be held accountable for harming the Trump admin and public trust.' Similarly, Tucker Carlson called out Bondi's claims, adding that he now believes that the government does not have 'much relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes.' 'Rather than just admit that, Pam Bondi made a bunch of ludicrous claims on cable news shows that she couldn't back up, and this current outrage is the result,' he explained during an interview with NBC News. Currently, there has been no indication made by the White House about plans to move on from Bondi, with many expecting the attorney general to retain her role for the foreseeable future.

Wall Street Journal
29 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Benefit of Ebbing EVs
Helping Ukraine against a weakened Russia coincides nicely with the demise of electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels ('Trump Calls Out the Putin Charade,' Review and Outlook, July 9). Freed-up U.S. manufacturing capacity can go to missile systems and ammunition primarily for sale to Europe and use by Ukraine. General Motors has shown such versatility by producing tens of thousands of tanks and armored vehicles in World War II and 30,000 ventilators during the Covid pandemic. It's time to heed Rahm Emanuel's rule: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. William J. Doyle