April 10, 2025 • 25 mins
The CoLeague Experience - Explore, learn, Share
Perovskite Solar Cells: A Cheaper Alternative Challenging Coal and Silicon GM Opens UK Design Studio Amidst Trade War Challenges Tesla Faces Decline Amid Musk's Controversial Ties and Public Disapproval Climate U-Turn: Disaster or Great Move? #EV, #cleantech, #perovskitesolarcells, #GM, #Tesla, #climatechange, #tradewar
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Innovation Pulse, your quick no-nonsense update on the latest in clean tech and EVs.
(00:10):
First, we will cover the latest news.
Perovskite solar cells challenge coal as costs drop.
GM expands globally with a new UK design studio.
Tesla's brand faces backlash.
After this, we'll dive deep into the dramatic changes in US climate policy and its implications for the future of clean energy.
(00:34):
Stay tuned.
Perovskite solar cells are emerging as a formidable competitor to coal with new developments from UK firm Oxford PV and Chinese manufacturer Trinazolar.
These cells use synthetic perovskite to lower costs compared to traditional silicon cells.
(00:55):
Despite perovskite's fragility, recent advancements include tandem cells that blend perovskite with silicon for enhanced performance.
Oxford PV and Trinazolar's partnership, focusing on the Chinese market, aims to accelerate the deployment of this technology.
Notably, Trinazolar is expanding production in China, while Oxford PV remains open to licensing opportunities outside China.
(01:23):
In other news, researchers in China and Switzerland are enhancing perovskite cell efficiency and durability.
Excitingly, perovskite cells are also being considered for space applications, including potential use on the moon, which could revolutionize energy generation beyond Earth.
(01:45):
Join us as we discover the impact of GM's expansion.
General Motors has opened a new advanced design studio in Royal Lemington Spa, England, marking its return to the European market.
This move is part of a global design project and coincides with the unveiling of a Chevrolet Corvette concept car.
Amidst United States trade tensions and tariffs, GM aims to expand its presence in Europe, having sold its Opel division in 2017.
(02:15):
The automotive industry faces challenges from United States tariffs, impacting costs and supply chains.
Companies like Jaguar Land Rover are pausing United States shipments due to these tariffs.
The trade war with China also poses risks, with Chinese automaker BYD offering competitive pricing.
(02:38):
This situation is causing uncertainty, with automakers like Ford and Volkswagen reassessing their investment strategies.
The industry is navigating rising costs and shifting markets as global trade dynamics evolve.
Elon Musk's recent actions have caused a significant shift in Tesla's loyal following.
(03:02):
On Saturday Night Live, a parody suggested that Tesla's diminishing popularity is due to Musk himself.
Musk, responding on his social media platform X, criticized SNL, indicating tension between him and the media.
This comes amidst Musk's evolving relationship with former President Donald Trump, as Musk's views on trade and tariffs seem to diverge from Trump's policies.
(03:29):
Musk's controversial decisions and alliance with Trump have sparked protests and led to disillusionment among Tesla supporters.
This has affected Tesla's brand and stock value as former fans express disappointment and sell their vehicles.
Public opposition to Musk's and Trump's agenda is growing as seen in widespread protests and satirical campaigns critiquing Musk's leadership and political stance.
(03:59):
And now, pivot our discussion towards the main clean tech topic.
All right, everybody, welcome to another deep dive into the ever-evolving world of energy, environment, and policy.
I'm Donna, your guide to all things climate and clean tech, and I've got a wonderful co-host here with me today.
(04:23):
Thank you, Donna.
I'm Jakob Lasker, and I'm so excited about today's discussion.
We've got a lot to talk about, new policies, changes in the energy sector, and this massive pivot in environmental regulations.
We'll explore how all this impacts jobs, public health, and even our global standing.
(04:44):
Buckle up, because it's been quite a roller coaster.
Before we continue, let me share my new obsession with a brilliant podcast called The Co-League Experience.
I've been completely captivated by their deep approach to management, culture, and workplace dynamics.
What makes this show truly stand out is its unique view on leadership.
(05:06):
They don't just recycle the same old advice, but challenge conventional thinking at every turn.
Their exploration of organizational culture and processes resonate so strongly with my own management philosophy.
Each episode is deliberately short, just 10-15 minutes, making it perfect for fitting into a busy schedule,
(05:28):
yet packed with actionable insights you can implement immediately.
Despite tackling complex topics, the hosts make listening genuinely fun and engaging.
The Co-League Experience has quickly become my go-to recommendation for anyone looking to transform their management style.
You can find the name of the show in this episode's description.
(05:51):
Trust me, this one will revolutionize how you think about leadership.
Now let's get back to our topic.
New policies and this massive pivot in environmental regulations.
Absolutely. It feels like we blinked, and then wham!
There were dramatic changes in how the federal government approaches climate and environmental policy.
(06:13):
Let's start by setting the scene.
We're in April 2025, and over the past few months, there's been a massive rollback of climate regulations,
plus a renewed emphasis on fossil fuels.
Give us a quick rundown of what's going on, Yakov.
Sure thing.
The current administration has been on a mission to revise or scrap many policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
(06:37):
That includes executive orders that, among other things, declared a national energy emergency
and targeted a wide range of environmental rules, calling them overly burdensome.
And from what I understand, one of the first big moves was disbanding a group that had been used to calculate the social cost of carbon, right?
Yes. This group, often referred to as the interagency working group on the social cost of greenhouse gases,
(07:04):
was responsible for providing estimates of how climate pollution impacts the economy.
Without those estimates, you can't fully weigh the costs and benefits of regulating emissions.
If you don't factor in the damages from climate change, like extreme weather impacts, flooding, and increased health costs,
(07:24):
it becomes easier to justify rolling back regulations because, on paper, you're ignoring a big chunk of the cost.
I see. So that's one foundational piece, removing that tool, so to speak.
I also heard about attempts to revisit the EPA's endangerment finding.
For our listeners who might be a little rusty on these bureaucratic terms,
(07:45):
can you explain why that endangerment finding is so crucial?
Absolutely. The endangerment finding is the EPA's official stance that greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, threaten public health and welfare.
The legal backbone lets the EPA regulate those gases under the Clean Air Act.
If the administration successfully undermines or revokes that finding,
(08:09):
the federal government's authority to regulate carbon pollution becomes extremely shaky.
That would be huge. Once you can't classify greenhouse gases as harmful, it dismantles the rationale for many climate-related regulations.
Exactly, and that's only part of it.
In March, the EPA made headlines by rolling back something like 31 environmental protections in the span of a couple of hours.
(08:34):
It was a fast and sweeping move that touched on everything from rules designed to limit mercury emissions to regulations around coal ash.
It's interesting how all these changes connect.
For instance, weakening the rules on coal plants can affect air quality, water pollution,
and even the pace of renewable energy adoption, because those older plants remain more cost competitive.
(08:56):
Yes, it's all interlinked. And there's another dimension to this, environmental justice programs.
Under previous policies, there was a big push to address the disproportionate impacts of pollution on low-income communities and communities of color.
Now, many of those programs are being scaled back or dismantled altogether.
(09:19):
That's an important point. Historically, marginalized communities often face the brunt of pollution, living near power plants, refineries, or industrial sites.
So, stepping away from those programs might exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes.
Precisely. The fear is that eliminating or weakening those protections would leave certain populations vulnerable to higher rates of respiratory illnesses, contaminated water, and other environmental hazards.
(09:47):
Let's shift gears for a moment and talk about clean energy development.
Because for the last few years, we've seen this boom in renewables. Wind, solar, battery storage, you name it.
There were job surges, new tech was cropping up left and right.
Now, there's a sense that things have slowed down dramatically. What's behind that?
One big factor is the removal or freezing of federal support and funding.
(10:12):
Previously, legislation injected billions into renewables and other technologies like electric vehicles, battery manufacturing, and green hydrogen. All that good stuff.
Now, many of those funds have been halted or redirected.
So, the pipeline of new projects, whether that's wind farms, solar farms, or advanced battery factories, suddenly hits a snag, right?
(10:36):
Correct. Some projects were canceled altogether. Others are on hold, waiting for more clarity on regulatory conditions and financial incentives.
When the policy landscape is uncertain, investors get jumpy. No one wants to pour money into a factory or a wind farm if the rules might completely change in a few months.
(10:57):
Let's not forget about those tariffs. A 10% blanket tariff on all imports, plus additional import taxes,
means components for clean energy projects can become much more expensive.
Batteries in particular are heavily reliant on global supply chains.
Yes, the battery issue is significant. Right now, they're facing tariffs that could go up to 65% or more, dramatically raising costs.
(11:22):
If battery storage prices skyrocket, that's a direct blow to the viability of renewable energy projects that rely on storage to provide a steady power supply.
It's a chain reaction. Higher tariffs on materials mean higher production costs, which then mean higher prices for consumers, dampening demand, or at least slowing it down.
(11:43):
Exactly, and according to experts, we can't magically start producing all those components domestically overnight.
It requires time to scale up manufacturing, secure raw materials, and build the necessary infrastructure.
The administration views this approach to tariffs as a way to reshore American jobs, right?
But it sounds like the short-term effect on the clean energy sector isn't so positive.
(12:07):
Right? If the goal is to boost domestic industries, it's not as simple as slapping on tariffs.
Clean tech manufacturing often relies on global supply networks for specialized components.
If those supply chains face heavy duties, companies might just shift operations to other countries rather than invest in the US.
(12:29):
Now let's talk a bit about international dynamics. The US has pulled out of global climate agreements. Again, the previous administration had rejoined them, and now the US is in the midst of withdrawing.
Any sense of how that's playing out globally?
Well, it's sending strong signals that the federal government is prioritizing climate collaboration.
(12:50):
Some nations might follow suit, reducing their commitments, or they might go in the opposite direction to take the lead.
Historically, we saw that other countries sometimes scale back their ambitions if they feel like major players, especially the US, aren't pulling their weight.
Right, but I've also heard that the European Union is doubling down on climate commitments.
(13:13):
They've said they'll continue with their emissions reduction targets, regardless of what the US does.
Yes, the EU is still pushing forward. They see the economic upside of leading in clean energy industries.
Countries like China have also been massive investors in renewable energy, wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicles.
(13:35):
So stepping back from the global stage could weaken American influence in shaping how international policies evolve.
This is ironic because some US business leaders have expressed frustration.
They argue that they can't protect American industry interests in those massive foreign markets if the US isn't at the table.
Yes, that's the counter argument. You want to be in these big talks to have a voice in rules that might affect trade, technology transfer, or intellectual property.
(14:04):
It's sort of like, if you're not there, you're letting others set the terms.
Let's circle back to the domestic front. Jobs, the economy, those sorts of bread and butter concerns.
We saw stats that the clean power sector employed about three times more workers than fossil fuels prior to these policy shifts.
Yet the administration is pushing the idea that reigniting fossil fuels will spur job growth. Where do we stand there?
(14:31):
Well, before these changes, the renewable industry was adding jobs at a faster clip than almost any other sector.
Wind and solar projects sprouted in numerous states, leading to both construction jobs and long-term operational positions.
With new priorities favouring oil, gas, and coal, we might see some short-term job gains in those areas.
(14:56):
But many economists question whether that can match the exponential growth that clean energy saw.
Makes sense. It's a question of scale, too. Fossil fuel extraction can be capital intensive,
requiring fewer workers than before because of automation and technology improvements.
Meanwhile, renewable projects were popping up everywhere, from small community solar arrays to large-scale wind farms, each needing a lot of hands.
(15:21):
True. And let's not forget the supply chain jobs behind those renewable projects.
Everything from manufacturing turbines to maintaining installation equipment. That was a huge area of growth.
On the economic side, another aspect is that advanced manufacturing of EVs and batteries was really taking off, with billions of dollars invested.
(15:42):
Particularly after new incentives a few years ago. What happens to all that money and infrastructure now?
Some factories are idle or ramping down. Others are trying to find alternative funding sources.
A few might relocate to countries that are still pushing strong incentives for clean energy manufacturing,
like in parts of Europe or Asia.
(16:05):
It's an ongoing shake-up, and it might take a while before we see a new equilibrium.
Let's not forget the health angle.
This rollback of environmental rules, like regulations on soot and mercury, could have real impacts.
Health experts are concerned about increased rates of asthma,
neurological issues, and other problems associated with deteriorating air quality.
(16:27):
Yes, historically, mercury regulations in particular were crucial to protecting fetal development and preventing neurological damage.
So rolling those back concerns, many scientists,
if you relax controls,
industrial facilities could emit more pollutants, meaning communities might experience higher rates of certain illnesses.
(16:48):
The same goes for coal ash disposal. Without strict oversight, it can seep into groundwater, carrying dangerous heavy metals.
So you're looking at potential environmental cleanup costs further down the line, not to mention health care costs if people become sick.
Exactly.
There's a scientific perspective here. If you cut corners now, you often pay for it later, in health care expenses,
(17:12):
lost productivity, and cleaning up contaminated sites.
Let's look at the big picture. The argument for rolling back regulations is often about economic growth, cheaper electricity, and energy independence.
It's important to note that under the previous administration,
oil and gas production was already at record highs.
Electricity prices were relatively low, in part due to cheap natural gas and the increasing affordability of renewables.
(17:38):
Right. So it's debatable how much we really needed to unleash fossil fuels further if they were already doing quite well.
Some believe you can boost domestic production without gutting environmental protections.
Others say the regulatory environment was stifling and that we needed a reset to streamline energy projects and cut red tape.
(18:01):
Yes, so we're seeing this clash of philosophies.
One side says we can expand energy production across the board, both fossil fuels and renewables, but maintain environmental standards.
The other side argues that these restrictive standards lead to higher costs and slower growth.
That's the core debate, and there's also the question of how climate change factors into it all.
(18:25):
A large body of scientific evidence warns that increasing greenhouse gas emissions leads to more extreme weather events,
ocean acidification, and long-term economic disruptions.
Absolutely, and ignoring that data could lead to bigger problems down the line.
There's also the point about how these policy shifts affect America's leadership role.
(18:47):
Some experts say that the U.S. stepping back might allow other countries, such as China,
to step up and become the go-to market for clean energy innovation.
True, China's heavily investing in electric vehicles, solar panel manufacturing, and large-scale battery storage.
By not supporting these sectors, the U.S. might be forfeiting an opportunity to dominate industries that could shape the global economy for decades.
(19:13):
It's a strategic concern because if you think about it, whichever country leads in battery tech,
renewable energy manufacturing, and green infrastructure stands to reap huge economic and geopolitical benefits.
Exactly, and that's not lost on many business leaders in the U.S.
Some oil and gas companies even advocated for staying in global climate discussions
(19:36):
so they could help shape the rules around carbon markets, technology cooperation, and so on.
Let's also remember that public opinion plays a role here.
Polling over the years shows that many Americans are concerned about climate change
and support transitioning to cleaner energy sources.
So it will be interesting to see how that sentiment evolves if environmental conditions worsen,
(19:59):
or if states step in with their own policies.
Yes, states and cities can still enact policies at their level.
We've seen some states adopt stricter environmental standards and continue investing in clean energy,
even when federal policy goes in the opposite direction.
That can create a patchwork of regulations and markets across the country.
(20:20):
Speaking of patchwork, that's a good segue to the concept of interstate air pollution.
One of the rules rolled back was the Good Neighbor Rule,
which ensured that pollution in one state wouldn't unfairly harm another state's air quality.
If that's gone or weakened, we'll see more disputes between states.
Precisely. Wind patterns don't respect state boundaries.
(20:42):
If your power plant in state A sends pollutants to state B, that becomes a legal and health issue.
The rule was designed to make states accountable for those kinds of cross-border impacts.
So we have a cluster of issues all happening at once.
Regulatory rollbacks, changing international commitments, new tariffs,
(21:02):
a possible slowdown in clean tech growth,
and a potential uptick in pollution and public health risks.
That's a lot for folks to absorb.
It definitely is. From a purely scientific viewpoint,
many are alarmed by the rapid pace of these changes.
Rolling back environmental protections is a big experiment with real consequences.
(21:24):
But from another perspective, supporters argue it's a necessary pivot to secure
affordable energy and protect industries. They feel have been hurt by climate regulations.
Right, so it's complex. People on both sides of the aisle have deeply held beliefs about
balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship. And it's not all black and white.
(21:46):
Some folks believe we should keep certain protections but refine them to be more efficient
or less bureaucratic.
True. And you also have economists who argue that externalities,
like pollution or CO2 emissions, should be priced into markets for them to work pretty.
Others counter that imposing such costs slows economic growth.
(22:08):
So it's a philosophical debate that's been going on for years,
now heightened by these sweeping policy moves.
Exactly. So let's begin to wrap up with a few takeaways.
First, we're seeing a major realignment of U.S. federal policy away from strong climate
regulation toward expanding fossil fuels. That's leading to some immediate impacts.
(22:28):
Clean tech projects are stalling, investment is drying up, and we may see higher pollution levels.
Second, the U.S. is withdrawing from a global climate agreement again,
creating international ripple effects. Some partners remain committed and may fill the
leadership vacuum, while others might also scale back their efforts.
(22:48):
Third, the rollback of environmental rules targeting soot, mercury,
coal ash, and more could significantly affect public health.
People living near industrial sites, particularly in disadvantaged communities,
might be at greater risk.
Fourth, the long-term economic implications are still unfolding.
(23:09):
We might see a short-term boost in some fossil fuel sectors.
Still, the transition to renewable energy is already well underway,
and it's unclear if these policy changes will halt that momentum permanently or slow it down.
Those are solid points. From a scientific viewpoint, the consensus remains that climate
change poses significant risks. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.
(23:33):
But from an opposing viewpoint, some argue that overly aggressive regulations hinder business,
and that we need to prioritize energy independence and economic stability.
Yep, that's the tug of war. Ultimately, we'll have to see how it plays out.
Whether certain states, private companies, or even public opinion,
drive a continued shift toward clean energy despite these federal policy changes,
(23:58):
or if the fossil fuel direction becomes a longer, sustained path.
Well, this has been quite the comprehensive discussion.
Folks, if you take away anything from this conversation,
let it be that environmental policy changes don't happen in a vacuum.
They affect jobs, public health, technology innovation,
and America's global standing in one swoop.
(24:19):
Exactly. It's a web of interconnected variables, and every shift can spark new reactions,
economically, politically, and ecologically.
That's all from Yakov and me today. Thank you so much for tuning in, everyone.
We hope we've given you some food for thought,
and maybe some insight into what's going on in the energy and environment world.
Yes, thanks so much for joining us. Stay curious, stay informed,
(24:44):
and remember that our environment is the stage on which all of human life plays out.
The policies we set today will shape our tomorrow.
Until next time, take care and keep exploring these issues.
That concludes today's podcast, where we explored the advancements in perovskite,
(25:07):
solar cells, challenging traditional energy sources,
and the controversial shifts in US climate policy,
impacting both the environment and global alliances.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode with your friends and colleagues,
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights.
(25:28):
Stay tuned for more updates.
Welcome to Innovation Pulse, your quick no-nonsense update on the latest in clean tech and EVs.
(00:10):
First, we will cover the latest news.
Perovskite solar cells challenge coal as costs drop.
GM expands globally with a new UK design studio.
Tesla's brand faces backlash.
After this, we'll dive deep into the dramatic changes in US climate policy and its implications for the future of clean energy.
(00:34):
Stay tuned.
Perovskite solar cells are emerging as a formidable competitor to coal with new developments from UK firm Oxford PV and Chinese manufacturer Trinazolar.
These cells use synthetic perovskite to lower costs compared to traditional silicon cells.
(00:55):
Despite perovskite's fragility, recent advancements include tandem cells that blend perovskite with silicon for enhanced performance.
Oxford PV and Trinazolar's partnership, focusing on the Chinese market, aims to accelerate the deployment of this technology.
Notably, Trinazolar is expanding production in China, while Oxford PV remains open to licensing opportunities outside China.
(01:23):
In other news, researchers in China and Switzerland are enhancing perovskite cell efficiency and durability.
Excitingly, perovskite cells are also being considered for space applications, including potential use on the moon, which could revolutionize energy generation beyond Earth.
(01:45):
Join us as we discover the impact of GM's expansion.
General Motors has opened a new advanced design studio in Royal Lemington Spa, England, marking its return to the European market.
This move is part of a global design project and coincides with the unveiling of a Chevrolet Corvette concept car.
Amidst United States trade tensions and tariffs, GM aims to expand its presence in Europe, having sold its Opel division in 2017.
(02:15):
The automotive industry faces challenges from United States tariffs, impacting costs and supply chains.
Companies like Jaguar Land Rover are pausing United States shipments due to these tariffs.
The trade war with China also poses risks, with Chinese automaker BYD offering competitive pricing.
(02:38):
This situation is causing uncertainty, with automakers like Ford and Volkswagen reassessing their investment strategies.
The industry is navigating rising costs and shifting markets as global trade dynamics evolve.
Elon Musk's recent actions have caused a significant shift in Tesla's loyal following.
(03:02):
On Saturday Night Live, a parody suggested that Tesla's diminishing popularity is due to Musk himself.
Musk, responding on his social media platform X, criticized SNL, indicating tension between him and the media.
This comes amidst Musk's evolving relationship with former President Donald Trump, as Musk's views on trade and tariffs seem to diverge from Trump's policies.
(03:29):
Musk's controversial decisions and alliance with Trump have sparked protests and led to disillusionment among Tesla supporters.
This has affected Tesla's brand and stock value as former fans express disappointment and sell their vehicles.
Public opposition to Musk's and Trump's agenda is growing as seen in widespread protests and satirical campaigns critiquing Musk's leadership and political stance.
(03:59):
And now, pivot our discussion towards the main clean tech topic.
All right, everybody, welcome to another deep dive into the ever-evolving world of energy, environment, and policy.
I'm Donna, your guide to all things climate and clean tech, and I've got a wonderful co-host here with me today.
(04:23):
Thank you, Donna.
I'm Jakob Lasker, and I'm so excited about today's discussion.
We've got a lot to talk about, new policies, changes in the energy sector, and this massive pivot in environmental regulations.
We'll explore how all this impacts jobs, public health, and even our global standing.
(04:44):
Buckle up, because it's been quite a roller coaster.
Before we continue, let me share my new obsession with a brilliant podcast called The Co-League Experience.
I've been completely captivated by their deep approach to management, culture, and workplace dynamics.
What makes this show truly stand out is its unique view on leadership.
(05:06):
They don't just recycle the same old advice, but challenge conventional thinking at every turn.
Their exploration of organizational culture and processes resonate so strongly with my own management philosophy.
Each episode is deliberately short, just 10-15 minutes, making it perfect for fitting into a busy schedule,
(05:28):
yet packed with actionable insights you can implement immediately.
Despite tackling complex topics, the hosts make listening genuinely fun and engaging.
The Co-League Experience has quickly become my go-to recommendation for anyone looking to transform their management style.
You can find the name of the show in this episode's description.
(05:51):
Trust me, this one will revolutionize how you think about leadership.
Now let's get back to our topic.
New policies and this massive pivot in environmental regulations.
Absolutely. It feels like we blinked, and then wham!
There were dramatic changes in how the federal government approaches climate and environmental policy.
(06:13):
Let's start by setting the scene.
We're in April 2025, and over the past few months, there's been a massive rollback of climate regulations,
plus a renewed emphasis on fossil fuels.
Give us a quick rundown of what's going on, Yakov.
Sure thing.
The current administration has been on a mission to revise or scrap many policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
(06:37):
That includes executive orders that, among other things, declared a national energy emergency
and targeted a wide range of environmental rules, calling them overly burdensome.
And from what I understand, one of the first big moves was disbanding a group that had been used to calculate the social cost of carbon, right?
Yes. This group, often referred to as the interagency working group on the social cost of greenhouse gases,
(07:04):
was responsible for providing estimates of how climate pollution impacts the economy.
Without those estimates, you can't fully weigh the costs and benefits of regulating emissions.
If you don't factor in the damages from climate change, like extreme weather impacts, flooding, and increased health costs,
(07:24):
it becomes easier to justify rolling back regulations because, on paper, you're ignoring a big chunk of the cost.
I see. So that's one foundational piece, removing that tool, so to speak.
I also heard about attempts to revisit the EPA's endangerment finding.
For our listeners who might be a little rusty on these bureaucratic terms,
(07:45):
can you explain why that endangerment finding is so crucial?
Absolutely. The endangerment finding is the EPA's official stance that greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, threaten public health and welfare.
The legal backbone lets the EPA regulate those gases under the Clean Air Act.
If the administration successfully undermines or revokes that finding,
(08:09):
the federal government's authority to regulate carbon pollution becomes extremely shaky.
That would be huge. Once you can't classify greenhouse gases as harmful, it dismantles the rationale for many climate-related regulations.
Exactly, and that's only part of it.
In March, the EPA made headlines by rolling back something like 31 environmental protections in the span of a couple of hours.
(08:34):
It was a fast and sweeping move that touched on everything from rules designed to limit mercury emissions to regulations around coal ash.
It's interesting how all these changes connect.
For instance, weakening the rules on coal plants can affect air quality, water pollution,
and even the pace of renewable energy adoption, because those older plants remain more cost competitive.
(08:56):
Yes, it's all interlinked. And there's another dimension to this, environmental justice programs.
Under previous policies, there was a big push to address the disproportionate impacts of pollution on low-income communities and communities of color.
Now, many of those programs are being scaled back or dismantled altogether.
(09:19):
That's an important point. Historically, marginalized communities often face the brunt of pollution, living near power plants, refineries, or industrial sites.
So, stepping away from those programs might exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes.
Precisely. The fear is that eliminating or weakening those protections would leave certain populations vulnerable to higher rates of respiratory illnesses, contaminated water, and other environmental hazards.
(09:47):
Let's shift gears for a moment and talk about clean energy development.
Because for the last few years, we've seen this boom in renewables. Wind, solar, battery storage, you name it.
There were job surges, new tech was cropping up left and right.
Now, there's a sense that things have slowed down dramatically. What's behind that?
One big factor is the removal or freezing of federal support and funding.
(10:12):
Previously, legislation injected billions into renewables and other technologies like electric vehicles, battery manufacturing, and green hydrogen. All that good stuff.
Now, many of those funds have been halted or redirected.
So, the pipeline of new projects, whether that's wind farms, solar farms, or advanced battery factories, suddenly hits a snag, right?
(10:36):
Correct. Some projects were canceled altogether. Others are on hold, waiting for more clarity on regulatory conditions and financial incentives.
When the policy landscape is uncertain, investors get jumpy. No one wants to pour money into a factory or a wind farm if the rules might completely change in a few months.
(10:57):
Let's not forget about those tariffs. A 10% blanket tariff on all imports, plus additional import taxes,
means components for clean energy projects can become much more expensive.
Batteries in particular are heavily reliant on global supply chains.
Yes, the battery issue is significant. Right now, they're facing tariffs that could go up to 65% or more, dramatically raising costs.
(11:22):
If battery storage prices skyrocket, that's a direct blow to the viability of renewable energy projects that rely on storage to provide a steady power supply.
It's a chain reaction. Higher tariffs on materials mean higher production costs, which then mean higher prices for consumers, dampening demand, or at least slowing it down.
(11:43):
Exactly, and according to experts, we can't magically start producing all those components domestically overnight.
It requires time to scale up manufacturing, secure raw materials, and build the necessary infrastructure.
The administration views this approach to tariffs as a way to reshore American jobs, right?
But it sounds like the short-term effect on the clean energy sector isn't so positive.
(12:07):
Right? If the goal is to boost domestic industries, it's not as simple as slapping on tariffs.
Clean tech manufacturing often relies on global supply networks for specialized components.
If those supply chains face heavy duties, companies might just shift operations to other countries rather than invest in the US.
(12:29):
Now let's talk a bit about international dynamics. The US has pulled out of global climate agreements. Again, the previous administration had rejoined them, and now the US is in the midst of withdrawing.
Any sense of how that's playing out globally?
Well, it's sending strong signals that the federal government is prioritizing climate collaboration.
(12:50):
Some nations might follow suit, reducing their commitments, or they might go in the opposite direction to take the lead.
Historically, we saw that other countries sometimes scale back their ambitions if they feel like major players, especially the US, aren't pulling their weight.
Right, but I've also heard that the European Union is doubling down on climate commitments.
(13:13):
They've said they'll continue with their emissions reduction targets, regardless of what the US does.
Yes, the EU is still pushing forward. They see the economic upside of leading in clean energy industries.
Countries like China have also been massive investors in renewable energy, wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicles.
(13:35):
So stepping back from the global stage could weaken American influence in shaping how international policies evolve.
This is ironic because some US business leaders have expressed frustration.
They argue that they can't protect American industry interests in those massive foreign markets if the US isn't at the table.
Yes, that's the counter argument. You want to be in these big talks to have a voice in rules that might affect trade, technology transfer, or intellectual property.
(14:04):
It's sort of like, if you're not there, you're letting others set the terms.
Let's circle back to the domestic front. Jobs, the economy, those sorts of bread and butter concerns.
We saw stats that the clean power sector employed about three times more workers than fossil fuels prior to these policy shifts.
Yet the administration is pushing the idea that reigniting fossil fuels will spur job growth. Where do we stand there?
(14:31):
Well, before these changes, the renewable industry was adding jobs at a faster clip than almost any other sector.
Wind and solar projects sprouted in numerous states, leading to both construction jobs and long-term operational positions.
With new priorities favouring oil, gas, and coal, we might see some short-term job gains in those areas.
(14:56):
But many economists question whether that can match the exponential growth that clean energy saw.
Makes sense. It's a question of scale, too. Fossil fuel extraction can be capital intensive,
requiring fewer workers than before because of automation and technology improvements.
Meanwhile, renewable projects were popping up everywhere, from small community solar arrays to large-scale wind farms, each needing a lot of hands.
(15:21):
True. And let's not forget the supply chain jobs behind those renewable projects.
Everything from manufacturing turbines to maintaining installation equipment. That was a huge area of growth.
On the economic side, another aspect is that advanced manufacturing of EVs and batteries was really taking off, with billions of dollars invested.
(15:42):
Particularly after new incentives a few years ago. What happens to all that money and infrastructure now?
Some factories are idle or ramping down. Others are trying to find alternative funding sources.
A few might relocate to countries that are still pushing strong incentives for clean energy manufacturing,
like in parts of Europe or Asia.
(16:05):
It's an ongoing shake-up, and it might take a while before we see a new equilibrium.
Let's not forget the health angle.
This rollback of environmental rules, like regulations on soot and mercury, could have real impacts.
Health experts are concerned about increased rates of asthma,
neurological issues, and other problems associated with deteriorating air quality.
(16:27):
Yes, historically, mercury regulations in particular were crucial to protecting fetal development and preventing neurological damage.
So rolling those back concerns, many scientists,
if you relax controls,
industrial facilities could emit more pollutants, meaning communities might experience higher rates of certain illnesses.
(16:48):
The same goes for coal ash disposal. Without strict oversight, it can seep into groundwater, carrying dangerous heavy metals.
So you're looking at potential environmental cleanup costs further down the line, not to mention health care costs if people become sick.
Exactly.
There's a scientific perspective here. If you cut corners now, you often pay for it later, in health care expenses,
(17:12):
lost productivity, and cleaning up contaminated sites.
Let's look at the big picture. The argument for rolling back regulations is often about economic growth, cheaper electricity, and energy independence.
It's important to note that under the previous administration,
oil and gas production was already at record highs.
Electricity prices were relatively low, in part due to cheap natural gas and the increasing affordability of renewables.
(17:38):
Right. So it's debatable how much we really needed to unleash fossil fuels further if they were already doing quite well.
Some believe you can boost domestic production without gutting environmental protections.
Others say the regulatory environment was stifling and that we needed a reset to streamline energy projects and cut red tape.
(18:01):
Yes, so we're seeing this clash of philosophies.
One side says we can expand energy production across the board, both fossil fuels and renewables, but maintain environmental standards.
The other side argues that these restrictive standards lead to higher costs and slower growth.
That's the core debate, and there's also the question of how climate change factors into it all.
(18:25):
A large body of scientific evidence warns that increasing greenhouse gas emissions leads to more extreme weather events,
ocean acidification, and long-term economic disruptions.
Absolutely, and ignoring that data could lead to bigger problems down the line.
There's also the point about how these policy shifts affect America's leadership role.
(18:47):
Some experts say that the U.S. stepping back might allow other countries, such as China,
to step up and become the go-to market for clean energy innovation.
True, China's heavily investing in electric vehicles, solar panel manufacturing, and large-scale battery storage.
By not supporting these sectors, the U.S. might be forfeiting an opportunity to dominate industries that could shape the global economy for decades.
(19:13):
It's a strategic concern because if you think about it, whichever country leads in battery tech,
renewable energy manufacturing, and green infrastructure stands to reap huge economic and geopolitical benefits.
Exactly, and that's not lost on many business leaders in the U.S.
Some oil and gas companies even advocated for staying in global climate discussions
(19:36):
so they could help shape the rules around carbon markets, technology cooperation, and so on.
Let's also remember that public opinion plays a role here.
Polling over the years shows that many Americans are concerned about climate change
and support transitioning to cleaner energy sources.
So it will be interesting to see how that sentiment evolves if environmental conditions worsen,
(19:59):
or if states step in with their own policies.
Yes, states and cities can still enact policies at their level.
We've seen some states adopt stricter environmental standards and continue investing in clean energy,
even when federal policy goes in the opposite direction.
That can create a patchwork of regulations and markets across the country.
(20:20):
Speaking of patchwork, that's a good segue to the concept of interstate air pollution.
One of the rules rolled back was the Good Neighbor Rule,
which ensured that pollution in one state wouldn't unfairly harm another state's air quality.
If that's gone or weakened, we'll see more disputes between states.
Precisely. Wind patterns don't respect state boundaries.
(20:42):
If your power plant in state A sends pollutants to state B, that becomes a legal and health issue.
The rule was designed to make states accountable for those kinds of cross-border impacts.
So we have a cluster of issues all happening at once.
Regulatory rollbacks, changing international commitments, new tariffs,
(21:02):
a possible slowdown in clean tech growth,
and a potential uptick in pollution and public health risks.
That's a lot for folks to absorb.
It definitely is. From a purely scientific viewpoint,
many are alarmed by the rapid pace of these changes.
Rolling back environmental protections is a big experiment with real consequences.
(21:24):
But from another perspective, supporters argue it's a necessary pivot to secure
affordable energy and protect industries. They feel have been hurt by climate regulations.
Right, so it's complex. People on both sides of the aisle have deeply held beliefs about
balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship. And it's not all black and white.
(21:46):
Some folks believe we should keep certain protections but refine them to be more efficient
or less bureaucratic.
True. And you also have economists who argue that externalities,
like pollution or CO2 emissions, should be priced into markets for them to work pretty.
Others counter that imposing such costs slows economic growth.
(22:08):
So it's a philosophical debate that's been going on for years,
now heightened by these sweeping policy moves.
Exactly. So let's begin to wrap up with a few takeaways.
First, we're seeing a major realignment of U.S. federal policy away from strong climate
regulation toward expanding fossil fuels. That's leading to some immediate impacts.
(22:28):
Clean tech projects are stalling, investment is drying up, and we may see higher pollution levels.
Second, the U.S. is withdrawing from a global climate agreement again,
creating international ripple effects. Some partners remain committed and may fill the
leadership vacuum, while others might also scale back their efforts.
(22:48):
Third, the rollback of environmental rules targeting soot, mercury,
coal ash, and more could significantly affect public health.
People living near industrial sites, particularly in disadvantaged communities,
might be at greater risk.
Fourth, the long-term economic implications are still unfolding.
(23:09):
We might see a short-term boost in some fossil fuel sectors.
Still, the transition to renewable energy is already well underway,
and it's unclear if these policy changes will halt that momentum permanently or slow it down.
Those are solid points. From a scientific viewpoint, the consensus remains that climate
change poses significant risks. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.
(23:33):
But from an opposing viewpoint, some argue that overly aggressive regulations hinder business,
and that we need to prioritize energy independence and economic stability.
Yep, that's the tug of war. Ultimately, we'll have to see how it plays out.
Whether certain states, private companies, or even public opinion,
drive a continued shift toward clean energy despite these federal policy changes,
(23:58):
or if the fossil fuel direction becomes a longer, sustained path.
Well, this has been quite the comprehensive discussion.
Folks, if you take away anything from this conversation,
let it be that environmental policy changes don't happen in a vacuum.
They affect jobs, public health, technology innovation,
and America's global standing in one swoop.
(24:19):
Exactly. It's a web of interconnected variables, and every shift can spark new reactions,
economically, politically, and ecologically.
That's all from Yakov and me today. Thank you so much for tuning in, everyone.
We hope we've given you some food for thought,
and maybe some insight into what's going on in the energy and environment world.
Yes, thanks so much for joining us. Stay curious, stay informed,
(24:44):
and remember that our environment is the stage on which all of human life plays out.
The policies we set today will shape our tomorrow.
Until next time, take care and keep exploring these issues.
That concludes today's podcast, where we explored the advancements in perovskite,
(25:07):
solar cells, challenging traditional energy sources,
and the controversial shifts in US climate policy,
impacting both the environment and global alliances.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode with your friends and colleagues,
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights.
(25:28):
Stay tuned for more updates.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!