Tax giveaways and coal renaissance as an attack on environment, climate and society – an investigative report

The government in Washington has presented a plan that looks like a fossil from another time: coal is supposed to return to the top of the US energy supply, no matter the cost. 13.1 million acres of federal land will be opened for mining, royalty payments lowered, 625 million dollars pumped into old power plants to artificially extend their lifetime. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency is tearing down limits – from CO2 to mercury to toxic wastewater. It is a backward roll, an attempt to restore an era that the market, technology and science have long since left behind.

Trump stages the old ritual: helmets in the background, slogans in the foreground – "clean, beautiful coal" – and the promise of cheap, safe energy. But in reality, there is a multi-billion-dollar subsidy apparatus behind it that props up an aging industry while the modern energy economy is already investing elsewhere. Since 2005, coal’s share of US electricity generation has fallen from almost half to just 16 percent. The trend was clear: cheap natural gas, solar, wind and storage are pushing coal aside. Hundreds of plants have been shut down, tens of thousands of miners have lost their jobs. Even in Trump’s first term, the emergency orders and subsidy programs could not stop the development – around 100 coal power plants went off the grid.

The new offensive is harder, more aggressive, but also more absurd. In June, the Energy Department forced the 63-year-old J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan to continue running by emergency order – even though neither the grid operator nor the utility demanded it. The costs – 29 million dollars in just the first five weeks – were spread across consumers in ten states. Further interventions have been announced. The justification comes from a controversial study warning of blackouts if too many coal units are shut down. Experts, states and environmental groups criticize the paper as one-sided and deliberately distorted: wind, solar, storage and flexible gas could already ensure stable supply – if they were not simultaneously being politically blocked. At the same time, parts of a General Motors electric vehicle plant in Detroit closed temporarily, while courts in Indiana and Ohio ruled on long-standing cases involving coal ash, and youth in Wisconsin sued the state over climate-damaging laws.

The consequences of this policy are grave. Coal plants are the largest emitters of carbon dioxide – the main driver of climate change. But they do not only emit CO2: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, fine particles and mercury pollute air and water, reduce quality of life and shorten lifespans. Asthma, cardiovascular disease, cancer risks – the list of health dangers is long. In mining regions such as West Virginia, black lung is still a reality. Wastewater from coal plants poisons rivers, contaminates soils, and hits poorer communities especially hard. Every extension of operating time is an extension of this risk. The truth about coal power is clear: it is climate killer number one. Scientific data show that coal plants are one of the dirtiest forms of energy generation. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), coal burning is the main source of CO2 emissions in the energy sector. In 2022, coal plants worldwide produced more than 15 billion tons of CO2 – almost 40 percent of energy-related emissions. The International Energy Agency warns that holding on to coal could make the rise in temperatures uncontrollable. We are already seeing the consequences today: heat waves, droughts, floods – disasters driven by fossil fuels.

A study by environmental scientist Jennifer A. Burney showed what effects the decline of coal power in the US has already had. Between 2005 and 2016, the shutdown of old plants prevented more than 26,000 premature deaths. At the same time, yields of corn, soybeans and wheat rose by 15 million tons because the air was cleaner. Even if numbers on premature deaths are disputed, the message remains clear: coal plants not only harm health, they also cause economic losses. Financially too, Trump’s policy is misguided. Every subsidy, every emergency order, every loosening of standards shifts costs upward. Modernizing old plants is expensive, their maintenance demanding, the fuel price fluctuates, environmental costs are borne by taxpayers and health insurers. Grids and markets must additionally be adapted because flexibility is needed that coal does not provide. Billions flow into stranded assets – into plants that will have to be shut down again in a few years.

Trump’s disastrous throw – and the states pay the bill

Donald Trump has long since found the showpiece of his second term: a gigantic legislative package, euphemistically celebrated by Republicans as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." It brings massive tax cuts, destroys climate and environment, tightened requirements for the needy and at the same time deep cuts in social security systems. But while Washington celebrates, the states struggle with the consequences – and the divide between Democrats and Republicans could hardly be clearer.

In Colorado, reality hit early. Governor Jared Polis, Democrat, called a special session of the legislature in August after his finance officials found a hole of 783 million dollars in the current budget. The reason: the new federal tax cuts, which automatically also reduce state revenues. The Democrats’ answer was drastic: corporate tax breaks were cut, state tax credits sold – a major effort to at least close part of the budget gap. Oregon is facing similar problems because its tax law is closely tied to federal law. Democratic legislators there are discussing how to decouple from certain Trump provisions to avoid losing hundreds of millions of dollars. At stake is the funding of health care, environmental projects and food aid – and even tips or overtime pay could soon be taxed again.

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has just signed a 255 million dollar package that directly responds to the consequences of Trump’s law. It includes millions for emergency food banks, for adapting to tightened work requirements in the food aid program SNAP, and for reducing administrative errors that could otherwise become costly. Because starting in 2027, federal funds are at risk of being cut if error rates rise above six percent. The speaker of the California Assembly, Robert Rivas, put it this way: they had done as much as possible to offset the federal loss – but the warning of a multi-billion-dollar deficit hangs like a shadow over Sacramento.

The contrast is even clearer in New Mexico. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham used the high revenues from booming oil production to act early. Although her state too will lose about 200 million dollars annually, the government is putting additional funds into food aid, rural health care, wind energy and subsidies for insurance through the Affordable Care Act. "We will not stand by and just let this disaster happen," said Peter Wirth, majority leader in the Senate. It is a lesson in how states with strong revenue sources can cushion the force of Washington’s cuts – at least for now.

But while Democrats act frantically, there is remarkable calm in Republican-led states, blinded by the lies from Washington. Montana, for example, faces annual losses of 114 million dollars – and still sees no reason for urgency, the joy that coal plants are supposed to run again overshadows everything. The chairman of the budget committee, Republican Larry Brewster, spoke of a "concern," but not of an urgent problem. In North Dakota, which is also closely tied to federal tax law, there is talk only of a possible early session next year – not because of the tax cuts, but to decide on the use of billions in federal subsidies for rural health care. And Iowa, whose revenues could shrink by 437 million dollars due to adaptation to federal law, relies on full reserves and the hope that it will also survive the consequences of Trump’s trade war with China. Governor Kim Reynolds declared they were "in a good position to cope with the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill."

The political front lines are thus clearly drawn. Democratic states respond with special sessions, emergency laws and billions in compensation – often out of concern that otherwise health systems, climate and social safety nets will collapse. Republican states, on the other hand, remain silent, postpone decisions or act as if there were no problem. "Maybe they don’t want to poke the Trump bear," political scientist Steven Rogers speculated when asked. For Democrats it is also a stage to show strength. But behind the spectacle lies a serious core: the law shifts burdens on a massive scale downward – away from Washington, into the budgets of the states.

It is an experiment with an open outcome. The first cost shifts in food aid will take effect in 2026, stricter work requirements for Medicaid will follow in 2027, the damage from environmental destruction will already have consequences in 2025. By then at the latest it will become clear how resilient the states really are. Until then, the divide between political camps remains: here frantic precaution and financial countermeasures, there a silence that looks like quiet acquiescence. Trump’s "beautiful bill" thus threatens to tear the country apart not only fiscally, but also politically – with consequences that could resonate for many years.

Meanwhile, the global energy transition is accelerating. China, which Trump cites as justification, is already leading in renewable energy expansion, installing solar and wind capacity at record pace and investing more than 90 billion dollars annually in sustainable technologies. The US, on the other hand, risks not only sabotaging climate protection with this policy but also losing its economic future. Clean energy has long been a global competitive advantage. It creates millions of jobs, while coal plants are becoming unprofitable. Solar power is already cheaper than coal, and even energy companies warn that a return to coal will be an economic failure. The health risk is immense as well. According to the WHO, more than 8 million people die every year from the consequences of air pollution, to which coal contributes significantly. Fine particles, sulfur dioxide and mercury cause respiratory diseases, heart problems, cancer. Coal plants also consume enormous amounts of water, pollute rivers and endanger drinking water reserves. The combination of climate crisis, health damage and cost avalanche makes Trump’s coal policy a triple disaster.

In the end, it is less energy policy than ideological ritual. It is a culture war against reality – with slogans like "mine, baby, mine" and worker romanticism that sacrifices human lives and the future. While Trump defames wind and solar as unreliable, he keeps coal artificially on life support. For the industry it means a reprieve, for the US a setback with enormous costs, for the climate lost time. Trump here does not appear as a savior of jobs, but as a destroyer of environment, health and future. His coal policy is no rescue plan – it is a politically motivated rearguard action against reason, science and economic logic. A country that plays this card loses not only money and clean air, but also the chance to shape the energy transition instead of chasing it. For future generations – including his granddaughter Chloe – this course means nothing less than a legacy of scorched earth.