Trump UN speech highlights rising costs of green energy, critics say

Former President Donald Trump used his Sept. 23, 2025, remarks at the United Nations General Assembly to frame the global transition to renewable energy as an economic burden, arguing that climate policies have raised electricity bills for households and businesses while disproportionately benefiting a small cadre of elites.

Trump portrayed the issue as an inconvenient truth, saying that despite assurances from the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum and other institutions, wind and solar energy are not delivering cheap electricity. He cited studies and data suggesting that countries with large shares of renewables also face higher power costs, a pattern he called incompatible with affordability for ordinary people.

The discussion highlighted European examples where electricity prices have remained well above U.S. levels even as renewables expanded. Germany, Spain, Denmark and the United Kingdom are cited as having some of the world’s highest electricity costs while pursuing aggressive renewable-buildout programs. Data cited in the briefing show that last year the European Union average exceeded 26 cents per kilowatt-hour, more than double the U.S. price of about 13 cents and well above China’s level. The United Kingdom’s price, cited in the briefing, stood around 36 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly three times the U.S. rate and more than four times the price in China.

Across roughly 70 countries, the International Energy Agency has data signaling a broad pattern: every 10% increase in wind and solar share corresponds with an uptick of more than four cents per kilowatt-hour in average electricity costs. The argument contends that renewables appear cheaper only when sunshine or wind is available and do not account for the costs of backstopping power when those sources are intermittent.

The piece notes that on windless or cloudy days renewables provide little to no power. Germany’s experience last winter, during which renewables supplied less than 4% of electricity for an entire day, is highlighted to illustrate reliability concerns. Advocates for storage say batteries could bridge the gap, but critics say current storage capacity remains insufficient. When conventional plants are forced online to compensate, wholesale prices have spiked; in November of the prior year, wholesale German prices rose as high as $1 per kilowatt-hour as older plants shut down and transmission bottlenecks emerged.

Developing nations are presented as a counterpoint to the resilience argument. The notes indicate that, in China, added coal consumption outpaced new solar and wind generation; in Bangladesh, coal additions outstripped renewables by a wide margin. India is mentioned in connection with allegations that billionaire Gautam Adani sought to shore up a $6 billion solar project by means described as a bribery scheme, illustrating what is portrayed as the incentive problem in pursuing intermittent power. The implication is that reliability and affordability matter to poorer nations, which cannot afford to rely on volatile renewables without robust fossil-fuel backups.

In the United States, advocates of renewables are cited as pointing to subsidies that backstop the green transition. Federal tax credits for wind and solar totaled nearly $18 billion in 2024, with state programs adding billions more. In Texas, subsidies have been reported to exceed $20 billion in the prior year, and estimates for hidden subsidies across the United States reach roughly $60 billion annually, suggesting that the public-facing price of electricity may be higher than headline bills indicate.

The central message of the piece is that while the idea of “cheap renewables” is politically appealing, the true cost of wind and solar includes back-up infrastructure, backup power agreements, and subsidies that often remain invisible to consumers. The author argues that the solution is not to discard climate goals but to pursue smarter, more durable forms of innovation that can deliver affordable, reliable energy. The proposed path includes substantially greater investment in research and development across a spectrum of technologies, including advanced nuclear, more reliable renewables with storage, and geothermal breakthroughs. Proponents say these innovations could reduce the overall cost of clean electricity relative to fossil fuels over time, while meeting energy-security needs.

The publication’s stance emphasizes that honesty about costs should guide policy: solar and wind are not cheap today because they require reliable backups, and forcing them onto power grids without adequate storage or dispatchable generation tends to raise prices. If rich nations prioritize innovation over slogans and subsidies, the argument concludes, a genuine green revolution could emerge—one built on affordable, reliable energy for all.

The report closes with a call to focus on long-term, economically sound solutions rather than a framework that depends on perpetual subsidies. It notes that the climate-and-energy dialogue remains essential, but stresses that affordability and reliability must accompany emissions goals as governments design next steps in the climate economy.