The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Trump administration, canceled $20 billion in climate grants that were part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). This program was created under a previous administration’s climate law to support clean energy projects. The money was meant for community organizations, nonprofits, credit unions, housing agencies, and solar energy initiatives across the country.
How does this cancellation impact clean energy projects, emission reductions, and economic growth in affected areas? Let’s find out.
What Was the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund?
The GGRF was set up in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. It was made to be a national green bank. It allocated $27 billion to the EPA for clean energy projects. These projects aim to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
The goal was to bring together public and private money to invest in clean energy, especially in low-income areas that are most affected by climate change.
The fund aimed to reduce pollution, boost energy efficiency, and create jobs. It focused on building clean energy infrastructure. It supported projects like installing residential heat pumps, improving home energy efficiency, setting up electric vehicle charging stations, and creating cooling centers in communities.

The “Solar for All” program aims to help over 900,000 low-income households access solar energy. This could save these families about $350 million each year on energy bills.
EPA Pulls the Plug—But Why?
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the decision to cancel the grants, saying there were concerns about fraud, waste, and misuse of funds. He said the money went to nonprofits linked to politics. There wasn’t enough oversight, which raised questions about the program’s management.
Zeldin said in a video:
“This termination is based on substantial concerns regarding program integrity, objections to the award process, programmatic fraud, waste and abuse and misalignment with the agency’s priorities, which collectively undermine the fundamental goals and statutory objectives of the awards.”
The EPA had already put a freeze on the funds due to these concerns. After a review, the agency said it found “serious problems” that made it too risky to continue with the grants, so they decided to cancel them entirely.
Legal and Political Firestorms
The decision has led to legal action and political controversy. Three nonprofit groups, including the Climate United Fund, have sued the EPA and Citibank. They claim that stopping the payments breaks legal agreements.
Democrats have pushed back against the move, saying the EPA does not have the legal authority to cancel funding that was approved by Congress. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said there was no real evidence of fraud and accused Zeldin of blocking money that was meant to help lower energy costs, create jobs, and reduce pollution.
The Justice Department and FBI are also looking into the program. A federal investigation into possible fraud has added to the debate over whether the EPA was justified in canceling the grants.
Impact on Emission Reductions and Net-Zero Goals: A Setback for Climate Progress?
Canceling these grants could slow down efforts to cut pollution and meet net-zero goals. The GGRF was supposed to help fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Without this money, some of those projects may not happen, making it harder for the U.S. to move toward a cleaner energy future.
Who Loses the Most?
The GGRF aimed to support disadvantaged communities. These areas often face high pollution levels and lack resources for clean energy. Many areas will get funding for projects. This includes solar panel installations, home energy upgrades, and new transportation options. Without this money, these communities might find it hard to cut emissions and lower energy costs.
Clean Energy Takes a Hit
Withdrawing $20 billion in funding could slow the growth of clean energy infrastructure. Many projects, such as expanding electric vehicle charging networks and installing energy-efficient systems in homes and businesses, depend on federal support.
Billions Lost, Jobs at Risk
Beyond environmental concerns, canceling the grants could have economic effects. The GGRF-backed clean energy projects aimed to create jobs, boost local economies, and lower energy costs for consumers.
Without funding, some benefits might vanish. This could harm jobs and slow economic growth in communities that needed support.
Pulling back these grants could also make investors hesitant to put money into clean energy projects. Private companies often get government help to lower risks in big infrastructure projects.
The sudden policy change might make investors uncertain about future government commitments, which could reduce financial backing for renewable energy projects.
Judge to EPA: Show the Receipts
A U.S. judge has demanded that the Trump administration provide evidence of fraud, waste, and abuse to justify terminating the $20 billion in climate grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the administration to submit a sworn statement by Monday detailing the alleged wrongdoing. During a hearing, she criticized government lawyers for failing to present any proof of misconduct.
The Climate United Fund seeks an emergency order to release the funds, warning that it may run out of money by Friday. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has defended the decision, stating that the program did not align with the agency’s priorities.
In a separate move, the EPA announced plans to shut down its Office of Environmental Justice and Civil Rights, which advocates say could harm minority and low-income communities affected by pollution.
What’s Next?
The EPA’s decision to cancel $20 billion in climate grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund has major consequences. It disrupts funding for key clean energy projects, especially in low-income areas. This could slow progress in cutting pollution and achieving net-zero emissions.
The legal battles, economic effects, and delays in clean energy projects highlight the challenges of this decision. As the situation unfolds, both government and private organizations will have to find ways to move forward and ensure that clean energy goals remain a priority if the country seeks to achieve its climate goals.
The post Trump’s EPA Cancels $20 Billion in Climate Funding: What It Means for Clean Energy appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测


