Let’s talk about money. Specifically, about the personal costs of running your cars or trucks, as well as heating and cooling your home or where you work. And let’s tie that conversation to policy decisions — just to make the point that public policy affects your personal pocketbook.
Here’s a starter: Vermont U.S. Senator Peter Welch released numbers this week showing how the war with Iran has driven up the cost of gasoline for Vermonters. Since Feb. 28, 2026, when Trump first fired on Iran, Americans have spent a total of $56.4 billion more for gasoline. That’s the extra $1 or more per gallon gasoline has gone up since Trump mistakenly thought he could flip Iran like he did Venezuela. Parcel out Vermont, and families in the Green Mountain State have spent $441 more per household on gasoline just in the past six months.
Think of that: $441 more in the past six months and the war has no end in sight. In fact, political analysts are suggesting this conflict with Iran could be the start of another “forever war” because Trump doesn’t want to admit his gross failure and Iran senses it has the upper hand on Trump.
That’s real money, but it’s peanuts compared to what the nation is wasting because of Trump’s obsession with fossil fuels.
In his Substack column, Ripton author and environmentalist Bill McKibben cites a bevy of statistics that show the cost benefit of renewable energy over fossil fuel with an emphasis on one point: the world today operates more cheaply on clean energy — no question.
First, once you’ve installed clean energy systems you no longer have to pay for fuel. To put an exclamation on that point, the International Renewable Energy Agency noted that “in 2025 renewables helped to avoid an estimated $480 billion in fossil fuel costs and around 8.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.”
McKibben goes on to describe how fast the cost of clean energy has been dropping. “Since 2010, the cost of solar PV has fallen by 89%, onshore wind by 71%, and offshore wind by 63%. This highlights how renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity in most markets.”
He then shows how Trump’s effort to undo Biden’s progress on clean energy through the Infrastructure Act, such as by making appliances more energy efficient, costs American consumers. “Higher (energy efficiency) standards (for appliances) available to the DOE could save the average US household $160 a year, and all U.S. businesses $15 billion a year in electricity costs between 2030 and 2050. Moreover, the “clean energy projects (216 at least) cancelled since Trump took office in Jan. 2025 would have supplied at least half a million good jobs.”
The folks at Energy Innovation estimate Trump’s energy policy since his second term (in which he had gutted Biden’s clean energy measures) will increase costs for the average American household by $460 per household in 2035. Furthermore, by removing the incentives for Biden’s quick energy transition, Trump’s big ugly bill will cost the U.S. economy, “820,000 jobs per year over the next decade, in addition to the 144,000 clean energy jobs lost within the past 18 months.”
The numbers are even worse if you figure in public health and climate costs. According to McKibben, “worsening local air pollution will raise healthcare costs by $43 billion with annual increases of $4 billion in 2035 and $4.5 billion in 2040.”And a rapidly approaching El Nino is threatening massive “food shocks” that will stretch into at least 2028.
“Just to reiterate,” McKibben sums up, “instead of speeding the conversion to clean cheap energy, which would save households huge amounts of money, we’re instead shoveling taxpayer cash (in the form of increased subsidies) to the fossil fuel industry, and in the process overheating the earth, which will be the most expensive thing that we’ve ever done, by orders of magnitude.”
In the Trump administration’s growing list of stupid things it’s done, his decisions to gut President Biden’s clean energy provisions and to transition the nation off fossil fuels ranks near the top. Not only does it cost Americans more every day when driving or heating their homes, but it sets the U.S. behind China and others in the race to control the future of the world’s energy. Oil, fittingly, is being fossilized quicker than anyone imagined. Only Trump thinks otherwise and he’s hanging his weird obsession around America’s neck like an oil-soaked albatross.

MIDDLEBURY CHOICE: CLEAN ENERGY VS NATURAL GAS
Interestingly, Middlebury’s question of how to power a sludge dryer in its proposed new wastewater treatment plant presents a different wrinkle when choosing between clean energy (electric power) and natural gas. The wrinkle is that the electric system is somewhat experimental; that is, Middlebury would be a test case at a larger municipal scale.
The town’s energy committee (see story page 1A in today’s Addison Independent) argues the sludge dryer should be powered by a newly developed system using electricity while the town’s infrastructure committee, professional engineers and municipal employees who would be operating the plant recommend using natural gas.
In this case, the clean energy system is almost five times as expensive based on a project life cycle cost ($2,574,400 for natural gas compared to $10,349,800 for electricity). But beyond the cost differential, Emmalee Cherington, the town’s director of engineering and wastewater chief, says she’s concerned about the town becoming the “test case for a municipal-sized electric sludge drying system.” She recalled the town tried an experimental system 26 years ago with a then-revolutionary lyme stabilization solids handling process, which “didn’t work” and resulted in years of being out of compliance with its waste effluent.
Municipal workers are also more comfortable operating the natural gas system, rather than working with outside consultants to maintain a system they aren’t familiar with.
Those are difficult hurdles to overcome, but the town’s energy committee has its eyes on its primary objective: lowering the town’s CO2 emissions. “Going with natural gas will increase the town’s greenhouse gas emissions by 500 tons a year, or 10,000 tons over the 20-year life of the project,” Energy Committee Chair Mike Roy told the board of selectman. “By going that route, the goal of getting our emissions down under 200 tons a year will never be met.”
The selectboard, which is slated to make its decision by the next meeting on July 28, encouraged the Energy Committee to present more information to bolster its argument ahead of that vote. Roy speculated that the manufacturer of the electric system might be willing to put financial safeguards in place to make it more attractive for the town.
From our perspective, the Energy Committee has its eye on the right prize, but it might also consider other ways to lower the town’s CO2 emissions, like a slew of additional EV stations, if the new technology (being a guinea pig for new systems is never ideal) is ultimately too much of a ulcer-inducing gamble for town officials.

Angelo Lynn