A new assessment by the U.N.’s International Renewable Energy Agency found that 91% of clean energy projects added in 2024 were cheaper to build and operate than those using fossil fuels. An estimated $2 trillion was invested in clean energy last year, or $800 billion more than for new fossil fuel projects, a 70% increase over the past decade.

And on average, solar power systems were 41% less expensive than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative, while onshore wind projects were 53% less costly, the report found. Overall, wind was the cheapest source of new renewable electricity last year, averaging 34 cents per kilowatt hour, followed by solar at 43 cents/kWh.

Globally, a record 582 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity was added in 2024, resulting in $57 billion in cost savings, according to IRENA. Beyond cost and climate benefits, increased use of renewable power also helps boost the energy security of individual nations, particularly those that are resource-poor, by reducing their dependence on imported fossil fuels.

“The energy transition is unstoppable, but the transition is not yet fast enough or fair enough,” said UN Secretary‑General António Guterres. “This is not just a shift in power. It is a shift in possibility.”

Even in the U.S., clean energy projects continue apace. Though President Trump’s new budget eliminates federal incentives for large-scale solar and wind projects in the U.S., those changes phase in over the next two years, giving big utilities time to add more capacity in the near term. This year alone, a record 32.5 gigawatts of utility-scale solar will likely be added to the domestic grid, along with 7.7 GWs of wind power and 18.2 GWs of new battery storage capacity, according to an Energy Information Administration estimate. By comparison, just 4.4 GWs of new gas-fired power will likely be added.

Clean power “is no longer a promise, it is a fact” that can’t be stopped, Guterres said. “The fossil fuel lobby will try, and we know the lengths to which they will go. But, I have never been more confident that they will fail because we have passed the point of no return.”

(Note: “On Monday, June 30, 2025, EPA sent over its ‘Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards’ proposal to the Office of Management and Budget,” an EPA spokesperson told Forbes. “The proposal will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator.”)

What impact do you anticipate from the elimination of the Endangerment Finding?

Cleetus: We need to see what's in the actual proposal, what exactly they're going to say. But it's so clear in this case that there's no rational basis to undermine or overturn the Endangerment Finding or to roll back all of these regulations that are meant to protect public health. 

Of course, this would be challenged in a variety of ways, including just the science, putting forward what is the latest science, which is even more dire and compelling since the 2009 Endangerment Finding. That record, the science is very, very clear and there will be a variety of challenges to what EPA puts forward. But we need to see what's in the actual proposal, how exactly they are setting up this evasion of their responsibility.

If this happens and is upheld in court, is there any ability at the state or local level in the U.S. to maintain certain aspects of climate-oriented regulations?

Cleetus: I don't want to speculate too far into the future because we don't know what EPA will release. What I can say is this administration and the EPA has shown itself to not care about public health at all and to be boosting fossil fuels in every way it can. And not only that, they are really overreaching in ways that go beyond what's legally their mandate to do. We have not seen Congress stand up strongly. We are a democracy, and there are supposed to be checks and balances. The courts have a role, Congress has a role, and policymakers are supposed to be looking out for the public interest. 

As far as what comes next, I think anybody who cares about public health and welfare understands that climate change is a reality and it’s on our doorstep. Wherever you live in this country, it is showing up in your community. There's no denying it. This is not a political issue. It doesn't matter if you're in a Red state or a Blue state. These climate impacts are being experienced by communities everywhere in this country. So any policymaker who's looking out for their constituents, any lawmaker who's thinking about the public has to take it seriously.

Placeholder Advertisement

Given the increasing frequency of severe weather events fueled by a changing climate, how does eliminating the Endangerment Finding at this time strike you?

Swain: As everyone else has characterized it–anyone who knows anything about climate change or climate policy or carbon emissions or extreme weather or anything else–it would effectively end the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant that can cause harm. 

That's a big deal because it is the primary regulatory or legal mechanism by which the federal government has done so in many cases in recent years. We've already seen dramatic rollbacks in other pollution regulations, dramatic rollbacks and support for green energy and for expanding the electrical grid and everything else, so this is on top of all of that.

Practically speaking, the U.S. is only one country of course. This doesn’t affect any other country's regulations of greenhouse gases. But the U.S. is one of the largest global emitters. And it has historically been a role model for much of the rest of the world in large-scale environmental policies. I think this marks the end of that era pretty definitively. 

We are seeing, in general, far more extreme heat events, even more record-shattering heat events. We're seeing more extreme downpours of rain like the ones we've seen in Texas and so many different places around the country this summer. And we are seeing intensification of hurricanes and of wildfires. 

Even though the U.S. is not the only global emitter and the U.S. does not control global climate policy, it is still bad news to the extent that it raises the potential of extra fractions of a degree of warming this century, even just based on what's happening in the U.S., because it slows progress in a very important country from a global perspective. It also sends a signal globally that not everyone is cooperating, and that signal of cooperation itself is an important part of getting buy-in from all nations.

The International Court of Justice says wealthy nations must curb global warming. The UN court said they must address climate change’s “urgent and existential threat" (Reuters)

California needs a little less farmland – and a lot more solar power (Los Angeles Times)

An electricity affordability crisis is coming. It sure looks that way, at least (Heatmap)

As U.S. retreats on climate, China and Europe are going green together. They promise new efforts to cut emissions as China positions itself as the world’s one-stop shop for clean energy tech (New York Times)

How a California cloud-seeding company became the center of a Texas flood conspiracy. Rainmaker was accused of causing the flood after conducting operations in the area (Los Angeles Times)