Current Climate brings you the latest news about the business of sustainability every Monday. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
getty
The Trump Administration makes no secret of its desire to fundamentally overhaul or toss out a vast range of U.S. regulations to promote greater production and use of fossil fuel energy, with little apparent consideration of how that may harm the environment or worsen global warming. That was particularly clear with two developments last week.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed eliminating Biden-era rules aimed at reducing toxic pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from coal and natural gas power plants, claiming that those facilities “do not contribute significantly” to harmful air pollution, absent any scientific data to support such a claim. That move was followed by President Trump signing a measure that would block California’s plan to ban sales of new gasoline-powered cars starting in 2035 and eliminate the state’s Clean Air Act waivers to set stringent air quality standards it’s had for more than half a century.
Both moves were cheered by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who has a radically different interpretation of the agency’s core mission–protecting human health and the natural environment–than his predecessors.
“President Trump’s actions delivered a decisive blow to California’s Electric Vehicle Mandate,” he said last Thursday. “The Biden EPA rules granting California’s waivers allowed one coast to set national policy while imposing significant costs and limiting consumer choice for Americans in every state.”
California’s environmental rules have indeed become a de facto national standard, with at least a dozen other states adopting its guidelines. And there’s a strong argument that that’s been a very good thing. The state’s efforts to reduce smog in Southern California led to the use of catalytic converters and emissions treatment technology that have worked wonders in making auto exhaust much less dangerous. The state’s 30-year push to create a market for zero-emission vehicles also led to the rise of Tesla and the modern EV industry.
The fate of both developments–weaker power plant rules and California’s air quality authority–are headed for court fights that won’t resolved for months if not years. Meanwhile, given that Trump and Zeldin are so profoundly shifting EPA’s focus from environmental protection to making it easier to extract fossil fuels for energy production, perhaps one more step would be to rename it the EEA—with Exploitation taking the place of Protection.
The Big Read
AFP via Getty Images
Climate Capital Goes Global As U.S. Turns Inward
There’s an old adage in politics: presidents propose, but markets dispose. That has never felt more true than in today’s climate investment landscape.
In the wake of President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, a quiet recalibration is underway. Investors—global and clear-eyed—are responding not with panic, but with poise. According to Robeco’s “Global Climate Investing Survey 2025,” a new study covering more than 300 institutional investors managing over $31 trillion in assets, the message is clear: the climate investment story is far from over. In fact, many believe it’s only pausing before a stronger rebound.
Yes, a shift is happening, as only 46% of investors now say climate change is central or significant to their investment policy, down from 62% last year. But the story isn’t one of retreat—it’s one of resilience. Across Europe and Asia-Pacific, where policy support remains robust, climate remains a top priority for over 60% of investors. Even in North America, where the dip has been most pronounced, many are choosing not to disengage, but to diversify.
The data shows we are not yet seeing a mass exodus from climate investing, but rather a strategic rerouting. Nearly 60% of investors say they’re waiting to see how U.S. policy develops before making major moves in sectors likely to be impacted. But what’s striking isn’t the caution—it’s the confidence.
A majority—56%—believe the impact of current U.S. policies will be temporary. They’re not abandoning climate goals; they’re simply adapting their timelines. Similarly, 53% say that while the Trump administration may slow down their portfolio decarbonization efforts, it won’t stop them. Less than a third believe it will derail their net-zero ambitions altogether.
Read more here
Hot Topic
EDTA
Genevieve Cullen, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association, on lobbying Senators to save EV and battery incentives in the “Big Beautiful” budget bill
What’s the potential impact on the EV market–and new manufacturing that’s gone to support it–if the changes as currently written in the beautiful budget bill are enacted?
Lots of folks in the industry and analysts have pointed to the fact that, and some numbers might be different, but the impact is negative. There could be a pretty significant capital dislocation, sort of stranding the investments that have already been made and stalling ones that are on the horizon. That also has a cascading effect on all of the jobs and economic development that flow from those investments. That’s why we’re looking for a ramp, not a cliff.
There are multiple federal incentives for consumers and manufacturers to buy and make EVs and batteries. If just the consumer tax credit were cut, would that be acceptable?
We see them as all of a piece. The consumer elements in this suite of incentives are why that manufacturing is being built. Production follows markets. We think that there should be a reasonable transition for all of the credits.
The EDTA is lobbying Republican Senators to preserve EV-related incentives. What’s the response so far?
What people are willing to say is that we want something reasonable. We’re looking to support these investments in our states. What exactly that looks like and what, as it goes through the grinder, we’ll see. But certainly, a good handful of senators have indicated that they are aware of the importance of a reasonable approach to this realignment.
Is President Trump’s effort to eliminate California’s Clean Air Act waivers and its push to require EV sales an additional problem for the industry?
The California market is the biggest in the country and it’s one of the biggest ones in the world. The California market will continue to play a big role, and that state will continue to use all of its policy levers to advance electrification. And I do think other states will try to step up to address the void that some of these policies are creating, in terms of leadership in the EV marketplace.
April EV sales in the U.S. appear to be down for the first time in 14 months. Tesla’s sales decline contributes to that but are there other factors at work?
It just shows what we’ve all been saying: Uncertainty is bad for markets. There’s a lot of noise around the consumer credits and will they be able to claim them? People aren’t sure and the dealers don’t know. The endless uncertainty does have a dampening effect. In the end, the market will continue to move forward. The question is just how fast. Certainly, a 360-degree negative onslaught of policy would slow things.
What Else We’re Reading
Clean energy cutbacks under Trump will cost the U.S. economy $1.1 trillion by 2035, a study finds (Inside Climate News)
Climate.gov going silent. The main federal website publishing climate and weather information is about to stop publishing new content (NPR)
Trump signs measure blocking California’s ban on new sales of gas-powered cars (Associated Press)
The tech industry fights to save clean-energy tax credits. AI companies have been leading backers of technologies including solar projects and battery storage (Wall Street Journal)
Sunnova Files for Bankruptcy. Why Some Solar Stocks Are Gaining. (Barron’s)
Housing, trees, and parking. In Seattle, you can pick two (KUOW)
California’s Salton Sea is emitting foul-smelling hydrogen sulfide gas, triggering health concerns (Los Angeles Times)
More From Forbes
