‘Clean energy projects will slacken in the US — other nations are rightly frustrated with Donald Trump's ecological policies'
What are some pivotal points in the history of batteries?
With the United States facing tariff uncertainties now, how is the battery industry faring?
You and your students collaboratively track clean energy investments in 'The Big Green Machine' — what do you see now?
Live Events
What explains this consumer reaction?
Please discuss China's leadership here?
You also write about how the Republicans were once staunch environ mental advocates — why did that change?
Can there actually be American exceptionalism in a warming world — and how should other countries react?
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Jay Turner is William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Environmental Studies at Wellesley College. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das, he discusses batteries — and clean power — in the era of Donald Trump I'm a historian and particularly interested in how understanding the past can help us meet challenges and opportunities of clean energy in the future.I've been studying how different battery chemistries became commercial products, started to scale and changed the way we use energy — my book 'Charged: A History of Batteries and Lessons for a Clean Energy Future' focuses on three types which trans formed the 20th century. These are the lead-acid battery, dis posable double-A alkaline batteries and the lithium ion battery which began by powering cellphones and is now energising entire electric grids.During President Biden's administration, the advanced battery sector saw onshoring and policies sup porting the growth of a domestic industry. With President Trump, the outlook has become much more complicated — there is uncertainty about the future of the Inflation Reduction Act now. Meanwhile, tariff uncertainty has caused companies to re assess their investment strategies.A decade ago, there was no advanced battery industry in the US — now, there are significant projects for mining and refining lithium and other critical materials, manufacturing components, assembling these and making electric vehicles (EVs) around the country. There are big factories in Georgia, material processing facilities in Washington state, lithium refineries in Oklahoma and Texas, etc. An optimistic take would be that the US is moving towards largely meeting the country's need for advanced batteries domestically — however, it is more realistic now to expect a slowdown in those investments and industry resizing itself, given policy changes and slow uptake from consumers. Our data is at: www.the-big-green-machine.com.Today, in China, over 50% of new car sales are battery-powered vehicles. In the US, we are approaching 10%. In part, that's inertia — the US invested significantly in conventional cars and it's slow to get people to buy new vehicles, especially if they're more expensive. The other part is cultural — many Americans have a deep attachment to conventional gas-powered vehicles. For some, it's also concerns about whether moving to electric vehicles means making the US more dependent on other countries for key technologies. The US has also been slow to develop charging infrastructure.In the early 2000s, Beijing started making state-supported investments in advanced energy tech and bringing these to scale with manufacturing — this included batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and EVs. The US also started this during the Obama ad ministration. However, China stuck with it and provided incentives to consumers, sup port to state-run and private companies and invested in relationships with suppliers of key materials worldwide — that combination allowed Beijing to scale manufacturing of clean energy tech faster than any country.In the 1970s, Richard Nixon enabled some of America's major environmental laws and created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Then, the Republican Party itself transformed — its moderate core dwindled and the Republicans grew more conservative and increasingly worried about environmental issues possibly placing the US at an international disadvantage. The turning point was Ronald Reagan's administration in the 1980s — Republicans started rolling back certain environmental regulations, citing more growth and less red tape. That has culminated with Donald Trump who largely dismisses the science that underpins environmental issues, has cut funding for ecological agencies and indicated the US won't join global efforts on climate change.The short answer is, yes, there can be American exceptionalism here — but this will mean a world which gets warmer faster and is less sustainable. It will slow collective environmental efforts and other countries are right to be frustrated with the Trump administration. It will take time to rebuild trust and cooperation which bolstered some of the world's collective environmental achievements like the Montreal Protocol.Views expressed are personal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
India building commercial silicon fab with 50,000 per month wafer production capacity: Union minister Ashwini Vaishnaw
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills India is building a commercial-scale silicon-based fabrication facility (fab) that will churn out 50,000 wafer starts per month, even as such fabs usually operate at 20,000-40,000 wafer starts per month, electronics and information technology (IT) minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said on minister was referring to the Rs 91,000 crore fab being built by Tata Electronics in Gujarat's Dholera, which was approved in February last semiconductor manufacturing, a wafer is a thin, circular slice of a crystalline semiconductor material, most commonly silicon, upon which integrated circuits are fabricated."Six semiconductor units, one fab and five Assembly, Testing, Marking, and Packaging units, are at different stages of planning, construction and execution. Four more (one silicon carbide fab and three ATMP including the most advanced packaging unit) were approved last week. The entire ecosystem - design, fabrication, packaging, equipment, chemicals, gases - taking shape in Bharat," Vaishnaw said in a post on social media platform of the largest equipment manufacturers—Applied Materials and Lam Research—are setting up their design, production, and validation facilities in the country, he comments came after Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in his Independence Day speech that while the first proposal to set up a semiconductor factory in India got killed 60 years back, the country will finally get semiconductor chips that are 'Made in India' and 'Made by Indians' before the year is on the PM's statement, Vaishnaw said semiconductor industry pioneer Robert Noyce had come to India to set up a plant in 1964, but the erstwhile Permit Raj implemented by the ruling Congress Party back then did not allow him to. Royce then moved to Hong Kong and founded global tech major Intel Corporation , Vaishnaw claimed in his "the Mayor of Silicon Valley," Robert Noyce was an American physicist and entrepreneur who co-founded Fairchild Semiconductor in 1957 and Intel Corporation in 1968. Fairchild Semiconductor was a pioneer in the manufacturing of transistors and of integrated circuits, while Intel created the world's first commercial microprocessor chip—the Intel 4004—in 1971. Both companies were founded and incorporated in minister also pointed out that Intel had once again tried to set up a semiconductor unit in India in 2005-06. "Once again, it was not allowed because of the policy paralysis of the UPA regime," Vaishnaw said, questioning Congress General Secretary and Member of Parliament Jairam Ramesh on it. Earlier in the day, Ramesh had posted on X that the Semiconductors Complex Ltd (SCL) was established in Chandigarh during the Congress regime, starting operations in Vaishnaw argued that despite being established so many years back, SCL, Mohali, continues to work at just a lab scale.
Mint
15 minutes ago
- Mint
Intel shares extend rally on Trump investment report, stock jumps 4%
Shares of Intel jumped on Friday after a report claimed that the Donald Trump administration is mulling a stake purchase in the US chipmaking company that has been facing struggles in the recent time. A Bloomberg report, which came shortly after US President Donald Trump met Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, said that the US government would pay for the development of Intel's factory in Ohio. Investors cheered on the news and the stock price hit a high of as much as 8.9 per cent on Thursday before closing 7.4% higher at the end of trading at $23.86. The Intel shares continued their upward movement on hopes of more financial aid for the turnaround of the struggling chipmaker, rising 4 per cent on Friday. The Ohio plant of Intel has faced setbacks, with the opening of the factory delayed to 2030. The US government investment in Intel is also expected to shore up the chipmaker's finances, which has been down to a point where the company has started layoffs as part of its cost-cutting efforts. The White House however did not confirm the authenticity of the report. 'Discussion about hypothetical deals should be regarded as speculation unless officially announced by the administration,' said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. The report comes as Trump indicated that he would announce tariffs on semiconductors next week. Donald Trump, who called the meeting "very interesting", has taken an unprecedented approach to interventions and deal-making with corporate America. His administration had struck a deal with MP Materials that would make the Department of Defense the largest shareholder of the rare-earth producer. Federal backing could give Intel more time to revive its loss-making foundry business, analysts said, but it still faces a weak product roadmap and trouble attracting customers for new factories. Under the Biden administration, Intel had emerged as one of the biggest beneficiaries of the 2022 CHIPS Act, as former CEO Pat Gelsinger laid out plans to build advanced factories. Tan, however, pared back such ambitions, slowing construction of new plants in Ohio. He plans to build factories based on demand for the services, which analysts have said could put him at odds with Trump's push to shore up American manufacturing.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
The art of no deal: How Trump and Putin will measure 'success' in Alaska talks; what's at stake
Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin US President Donald Trump will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Saturday for a summit that could shape both the course of the war in Ukraine and the fate of European security. For Trump, the face-to-face offers a stage to demonstrate his image as a skilled negotiator and peacemaker, a role he has long claimed he could play to quickly end the conflict. For Putin, it is a rare chance to push for a deal that locks in Russia's war gains, keeps Ukraine out of Nato, and eventually draws Kyiv back into Moscow's sphere of influence. The meeting carries high risks for Trump. Hosting Putin on US soil gives the Russian leader the recognition he has sought since being shunned over the 2022 invasion. By leaving out Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump also deals a heavy blow to the West's policy of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' and invites the possibility that he could agree to a deal that Ukraine does not want. So, how will both leaders measure success from the summit? Different goals for Trump and Putin Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will measure success at their summit in Alaska very differently, even as both leaders are looking toward a possible second meeting. The public expectation may be that both leaders are there to strike a breakthrough deal. But the reality is more complex, and for both leaders, "success" may not necessarily involve signing any formal agreement. The US president sees any form of ceasefire in Ukraine as a key objective of the talks. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 11 Foods That Help In Healing Knee Pain Naturally Undo For Putin, simply meeting Trump on American soil without making territorial concessions on the war is already a gain. These are the contrasting stakes as both leaders head to Anchorage for their first summit since 2018 in Helsinki. This gap in objectives shows both the opportunities and risks for Trump. It also explains why the meeting is seen as a first step, with both sides already discussing the possibility of a second summit. However, Putin has little reason to stop the fighting as Russia's military continues to advance in Ukraine, but he also cannot risk alienating a president with whom he has maintained a long relationship. Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine started Europe's largest war in 80 years and turned him into an international pariah. The summit gives him a chance to challenge the isolation imposed by the US and its G7 allies over his actions. The venue itself — Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, a US military base — gives Putin a symbolic advantage, as it is on American soil. The meeting also marks a departure from former US president Joe Biden's approach of "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine," a policy that ensured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was part of any major talks. While Trump spoke to Zelenskyy earlier this week, the one-on-one with Putin reflects his belief that he — and not Ukraine — is central to ending the conflict. "Russia wants to continue to pursue its objectives, which are to dramatically weaken Ukraine and essentially undermine its independence and sovereignty," Richard Haass, a former senior State Department official, said in an interview, as quoted by Bloomberg. "So Russia sees negotiations not as an alternative to that, but as a means toward that end." Lowered expectations The White House has sought to play down expectations for the meeting. Trump has called it a "feel-out meeting," and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described it as "a listening exercise for the president." Trump is already looking to a possible second summit involving Zelenskyy and European leaders, which he expects would be "more productive than the first." The Kremlin has invited Trump to visit Russia next. This is a change from Trump's earlier claim on the campaign trail that he could end the war within a day of taking office. In May, US secretary of state Marco Rubio said it was "abundantly clear" that a breakthrough was only possible with the involvement of Trump and Putin. One possible outcome could be an agreement to halt the fighting temporarily or partially, such as stopping Russian air strikes. Trump could also back Putin's proposal to take Ukrainian territory already under Russian control. It is also possible that no agreement will be reached, similar to Trump's 2019 talks with North Korea's Kim Jong Un, which ended without a deal. For Putin, the meeting is an opportunity to exploit divisions between the US and Europe and seek relief from sanctions that have slowed Russia's economy. Who else is attending? Trump will be joined by vice president JD Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Vance has played an important role in shaping the US stance and in talks with Russia. Putin will be accompanied by foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, along with Russia's defense and finance ministers, suggesting a focus on possible economic cooperation — an area Trump is interested in. The two leaders are expected to meet alone before joining their delegations for lunch. A joint press conference will follow. This raises the possibility of a repeat of the 2018 Helsinki news conference, where Trump sided with Putin over US intelligence assessments on Russian interference in the 2016 election — a situation Trump will aim to avoid. Ahead of the summit, Trump told European leaders that he would not negotiate new borders for Ukraine and would push for direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy. He also indicated support for security guarantees for Ukraine.
