Written by Germán Toro Ghio in Karlstad, Sweden, on 29 August 2025.
The Disruption of the Electric Vehicle Industry
Abstract: Donald Trump’s second presidency has thrown the global energy transition into turmoil. Offshore wind projects in New England and New York are on hold, U.S. investment in renewables has stalled, and international climate diplomacy is in disarray. Yet the story is larger than America. Russia pushes fossil fuels to retain power, while India and China — lacking such reserves — accelerate renewables out of necessity. Europe, meanwhile, positions itself as a safe haven for green capital. At stake is not only the future of wind and solar, but also the survival of the electric vehicle industry, suddenly destabilized by tariffs, cheap fossil fuels, and a geopolitical energy war.
Introduction: Energy, Vulnerability, Power
In August 2025, the global energy transition reached a moment of dangerous uncertainty. Offshore wind projects in the United States were suddenly frozen, international climate diplomacy fractured, and tariffs threatened to strangle the solar supply chain. The catalyst was not a natural disaster nor an economic collapse, but the deliberate strategy of the Trump administration.
Donald Trump’s second presidency has revived a fossil-first doctrine that goes far beyond domestic deregulation. It is a strategy of EVP — Energy, Vulnerability, and Power. The U.S. now uses its fossil wealth as a geopolitical weapon, exposing the vulnerabilities of rivals and reshaping power relations through oil, gas, and coal. This agenda aligns with Russia’s interest in prolonging fossil fuel dominance, while running counter to the structural needs of countries like India and China, which must accelerate the adoption of renewables precisely because they lack domestic fossil fuel reserves.
The future of green power, therefore, is not only a technological question but a geopolitical one. Are we witnessing a uniquely American reversal, or the emergence of a global trend? The answer lies in the unfolding clash between fossil abundance and renewable necessity.
Part I. The U.S. Offensive Against Renewables
The most visible casualty of Trump’s climate rollback is Revolution Wind, a flagship offshore project off Rhode Island. Developed by Ørsted — the Danish multinational that rebranded itself as the world’s first green energy major after abandoning fossil fuels — the farm was 80 per cent complete when the administration abruptly ordered construction halted. The justification was vague — “national security interests” — but the implications were stark.
Revolution Wind was designed to power more than 350,000 homes across Rhode Island and Connecticut. By stalling it, the administration not only deprived those households of clean energy but also destabilized the New England grid. ISO New England, the region’s operator, warned that 15 million people could face higher electricity costs and grid instability if the project is not completed. Around 1,000 jobs are directly threatened, and thousands more in the supply chain risk collapse.
The economic signal was immediate. Ørsted’s shares fell to historic lows, wiping billions in market value. Once celebrated as a global pioneer, the company now faces lawsuits, state challenges, and investor scepticism. Governors of Rhode Island and Connecticut denounced the decision as a federal attack on regional sovereignty and energy security.
But Ørsted is not alone. The Norwegian energy giant Equinor, which has invested heavily in the U.S. offshore market, is also under assault. Its Empire Wind 1 project, set to deliver clean power to New York, has been delayed and faces regulatory uncertainty. Beacon Wind, another Equinor development, is similarly exposed. Together with Ørsted’s halted venture, these cases illustrate that Trump’s administration is not targeting a single company, but rather the entire European-led offshore wind sector that has anchored U.S. clean energy expansion.
Scandinavian Repercussions
The reverberations are felt most sharply in Scandinavia itself. For Denmark, Ørsted is more than a corporation; it embodies a national strategy that has transformed a former oil-and-gas state into a clean-energy leader. Its success gave Denmark moral authority in climate diplomacy and financial credibility in global markets. For Norway, Equinor’s renewable division served as proof that an oil giant could pivot to wind, offering a green counterbalance to its role as Europe’s largest petroleum exporter.
Trump’s decisions undermine both narratives. Investors in Copenhagen and Oslo are watching billions evaporate from their pension funds, many of which are heavily tied to offshore wind projects abroad. Scandinavian governments — once confident that their companies would shape America’s energy transition — now face a loss of influence in Washington. At home, critics argue that depending so heavily on the U.S. market was a strategic mistake, leaving flagship firms exposed to political whims.
The broader impact on the wind sector is undeniable. Offshore wind is a capital-intensive industry, where confidence depends on long timelines and regulatory stability. Trump’s abrupt reversals have shaken that confidence worldwide. Banks and funds that had cautiously re-entered the U.S. renewable market after years of volatility are now redirecting capital to Europe, where policy stability and supportive regulation are driving record-breaking inflows.
Investment Collapse and Ideological Shift
The numbers confirm the collapse. According to Axios, renewable investment in the U.S. fell by 36 per cent in the first half of 2025 — a decline of $20.5 billion. This affects not only wind but also utility-scale solar projects, battery storage, and transmission upgrades. Developers who had lined up ambitious pipelines under the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act are now reassessing, delaying, or cancelling projects outright.
Inside the administration, the rationale is ideological. Ed Russo, a Trump adviser, declared during Rio Climate Action Week that climate change is not the central issue; pollution is. “Climate is not the emergency. Pollution is,” he said, reframing the debate in ways reminiscent of the early 2000s, when environmental politics fragmented into narrow battles over local smog or water quality, while ignoring global warming.
The culmination of this ideological shift came in January 2025, when Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement for the second time. The symbolism is devastating: the world’s largest economy and second-largest emitter openly discards international climate commitments. But the practical consequences are worse: other reluctant states now have cover to delay or dilute their obligations, and fossil fuel producers gain renewed leverage.
The administration’s hostility to clean energy reverberates into the EV market. Without abundant renewable power, the economics of large-scale charging networks collapse. Utilities in New England had already contracted future demand based on the assumption that offshore wind would cover EV growth. With projects frozen, the prospect of expensive, fossil-powered charging undermines adoption rates. Automakers from Tesla to Ford now face an infrastructure gap just as EV sales were beginning to accelerate.
Part II. Fossil Power as Geopolitical Strategy
Trump’s war on renewables is not confined to U.S. borders. His administration is systematically weaponizing trade, diplomacy, and finance to push allies and rivals away from climate commitments and back toward fossil fuels.
The clearest example occurred in late August 2025, when The New York Times reported that Washington was applying tariffs, visa restrictions, and port fees against countries that support stricter global emissions rules in shipping. In parallel, the U.S. struck a deal with the European Union: Washington would ease tariffs on European goods in exchange for a pledge that EU member states purchase $750 billion worth of American oil and gas over the next three years.
The message could not be clearer. Trump is attempting to transform America’s fossil abundance into a lever of geopolitical dominance. “Countries are destroying themselves with wind,” he declared in one speech, urging allies to abandon offshore projects and return to coal, oil, and gas.
Silencing the Data
Perhaps even more symbolic was the administration’s decision to halt environmental monitoring satellites. New federal satellites, once slated to track air pollution, ocean temperatures, and deforestation, will now operate without climate instruments. The effect is to blind both policymakers and the public to the scale of environmental degradation. If the crisis cannot be measured, it can be ignored.
This tactic recalls authoritarian information management: dismantle the infrastructure that generates inconvenient truths, then declare the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
The Solar Front: SunPower Under Pressure
If offshore wind is being throttled, the U.S. solar sector is being quietly strangled. SunPower, once America’s flagship solar manufacturer, is emblematic. Founded in California in the 1980s, it grew into one of the most respected names in photovoltaics, pioneering high-efficiency panels and rooftop systems. Yet years of Chinese competition, shifting subsidies, and volatile U.S. policy eroded its dominance. By 2025, SunPower was already struggling with debt and restructuring. Trump’s tariffs and the collapse of federal renewable incentives now threaten to finish the job.
Without consistent support, American solar firms cannot compete with Asian giants. China accounts for more than 80 per cent of the global solar supply chain, spanning from polysilicon to finished modules. Even India, despite its higher costs, has built export capacity aimed at the U.S. market. Trump’s tariff wars have left SunPower squeezed between foreign overcapacity and domestic hostility.
The deeper issue is not SunPower’s balance sheet, but what it represents. If the United States cannot sustain even one world-class solar company, its ability to lead in clean technology collapses. Silicon Valley can dominate software, but in the hardware of the energy transition — wind turbines, solar modules, grid batteries, EVs — America risks becoming a technological follower.
Fossil Abundance vs Renewable Necessity
Trump’s energy nationalism intersects with the structural realities of other major powers — especially Russia, China, and India.
The United States and Russia are mirror images: both possess vast fossil reserves and both are using them as geopolitical weapons. For Moscow, gas pipelines and oil exports are lifelines of foreign influence; for Washington, LNG cargoes and shale oil are levers of global trade. Despite their rivalry, they share an interest in slowing the renewable transition because decarbonization threatens their rentier power.
India and China, by contrast, are energy importers. China has coal, yes, but its oil and gas needs are massive and continue to grow. India is even more vulnerable, importing around 85 per cent of its crude oil. Neither can afford to remain fossil-dependent forever. Their strategic imperative is diversification. For China, that means building the world’s largest solar and wind fleets while hedging with coal to avoid blackouts. For India, it means scaling up domestic solar manufacturing and reducing exposure to global markets dominated by U.S. tariffs and Chinese overcapacity.
This divergence is the core of EVP: energy abundance creates power; energy dependency creates vulnerability. America and Russia, awash in hydrocarbons, wield fossil fuels as weapons. India and China, heavily reliant on imports, are chasing renewables as escape routes. The global energy transition is therefore not a single unified story, but a fractured struggle shaped by resource geography.
Cheap fossil fuels are another form of disruption. By boosting oil and gas output, the U.S. and Russia effectively lower global gasoline prices, undercutting the economic argument for EVs. For India and China, the opposite logic applies: their dependence on imported oil makes EVs a strategic necessity. China is already the world’s largest EV market, with BYD and Nio exporting aggressively; India is nurturing Tata Motors and Mahindra EV divisions as insurance against oil vulnerability. Thus the EV industry itself is fractured along the same EVP lines: fossil-rich powers stall it, fossil-poor powers accelerate it.
From Luxury to Mass Market: The EV Transformation
A decade ago, the electric vehicle symbolized exclusivity. Tesla’s sleek sedans and SUVs, or BMW’s i8, were marketed as luxury statements as much as climate solutions. Early adopters were wealthy consumers in California, Berlin, or Oslo, who were cushioned by subsidies and eager to display their environmental virtue.
That image is now dissolving. China has rewritten the EV narrative by producing millions of affordable models. BYD’s compact Dolphin and Seagull, priced under $15,000, and the wildly popular Wuling Mini EV, which sells for as little as $5,000, have brought electrification to the working and middle classes. These cars are not status symbols, but somewhat daily necessities — taxis, delivery vehicles, and family cars.
This shift has profound consequences. In the United States, Trump portrays EVs as luxury toys for liberal elites, out of reach for ordinary Americans. Yet in China, the industry is the opposite: a populist wave of accessible mobility, supported by state policy and industrial planning. India is beginning to follow the same trajectory, with Tata Motors preparing affordable EVs for its vast domestic market.
The democratization of electric mobility is therefore one of the most significant but underappreciated climate stories. Where EVs are cheap and widespread, they become politically resilient; where they remain expensive and elite, they are politically vulnerable. The battle over tariffs and subsidies is, at its core, a struggle over whether EVs will be an elite product or a mass-market solution.
Tariff Wars and Solar Glut
On August 27, 2025, Trump doubled tariffs on Indian exports to 50 percent, punishing New Delhi for continuing to buy Russian oil. The consequences for India’s solar industry were immediate. With 90 percent of its panels destined for the U.S. market, Indian manufacturers suddenly faced collapse. Warehouses filled with unsold modules, factories ran at only 25 percent of capacity, and domestic bidding slowed as costs soared.
India’s overcapacity problem is acute. Installed module production capacity has surged from 74 gigawatts at the start of 2025 to a projected 190 GW by 2027. Yet utilization remains low, and without access to U.S. markets, the glut threatens to bankrupt smaller firms. Companies like Waaree Energies, the national champion, are scrambling to diversify. Waaree has doubled its own U.S. manufacturing capacity to hedge against tariffs and claims to hold a pipeline of 100 GW in global orders. But even this resilience cannot mask the structural blow: India’s bid to become a global solar hub has been derailed.
China, meanwhile, continues to dominate. Despite tariffs, its sheer scale and low costs make it indispensable. Chinese panels remain nearly 50 percent cheaper than Indian alternatives, and panels made entirely with Indian components are 143 percent more expensive. By 2026, new Indian subsidy requirements may drive costs even higher.
Part III. Europe’s Counter-Move and the Global Question
While Trump dismantles renewable projects and tilts energy diplomacy back toward oil and gas, Europe is moving in the opposite direction. The divergence is not merely rhetorical — it is financial.
According to the Financial Times, investment in EU renewables has surged in 2025, absorbing capital fleeing U.S. markets. Major pension funds, sovereign wealth vehicles, and private equity houses are reallocating resources into European wind and solar pipelines. Germany, Denmark, and Spain are leading with record offshore wind auctions; France and Italy are ramping solar installations; Eastern Europe is seeking to attract grid and storage projects with new subsidies.
For Scandinavia, the picture is bittersweet. Ørsted and Equinor — Danish and Norwegian flagships — are reeling from U.S. hostility. But at the same time, their home markets in Northern Europe remain robust. Denmark continues to host some of the world’s largest offshore wind auctions, while Norway, despite its reliance on oil exports, is investing in floating wind technology for the North Sea.
Latin America: Green Power from Fossil Absence and Mineral Abundance
Latin America illustrates the same logic of EVP. Where fossil fuels are scarce, renewable energy sources advance the fastest. Uruguay and Costa Rica, with no significant oil or gas reserves, have built some of the world’s cleanest power grids. Chile, heavily dependent on imported coal and oil, turned its Atacama Desert into a solar powerhouse and is now betting on green hydrogen exports.
The region is also central to the electric vehicle revolution — not through car production, but through the extraction of minerals. The Lithium Triangle of Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia holds more than half of the world’s reserves. As EV demand explodes, these countries find themselves at the heart of a new geopolitical race: who will refine, control, and profit from lithium?
Latin America thus demonstrates a paradox: fossil-poor countries are structurally driven toward green energy, while resource-rich states like Venezuela, Mexico, and Brazil remain trapped in fossil dependence. The continent is a microcosm of the global divide: green pioneers on one side, hydrocarbon holdouts on the other.
A Global Trend, or an American Exception?
The broader question remains: is Trump’s fossil resurgence simply an American detour, or does it signal a global rollback of climate ambition? The evidence is mixed.
United States and Russia form the axis of fossil abundance. Both are deliberately slowing the transition to preserve their geopolitical leverage.
China and India, despite short-term backsliding, are structurally bound to pursue renewables. Their dependency on imported oil and gas makes them vulnerable; their massive domestic markets make them fertile ground for solar, wind, and EVs.
Europe is doubling down, positioning itself as the world’s test case for a post-fossil economy.
Latin America shows both faces of the future: green pioneers without oil, and fossil giants fighting to hold on.
Trump’s America is not the new global norm. It is the outlier — albeit an outlier powerful enough to destabilize the entire system.
Epilogue: A World Divided by Fossils
The struggle over energy is no longer a debate about technology. The turbines, the panels, the batteries, the EVs all exist. The true battle is political — and geopolitical — shaped by who owns fossil reserves and who does not.
Trump’s America and Putin’s Russia stand as fossil giants, weaponizing their abundance to prolong the hydrocarbon age. Their strategy is defensive: cling to oil and gas rents, blind the public to climate science, and undermine global agreements. This is not the vision of the future, but the denial of it.
By contrast, the future of green power belongs to the fossil-poor. China, India, Japan, South Korea, Europe, and much of Latin America cannot afford fossil dependence. Every barrel of imported oil is a liability; every shipment of coal a vulnerability. Necessity drives innovation. China’s BYD and Wuling have transformed the EV from a luxury symbol into a mass-market vehicle. India is scaling solar and cheap EVs as protection against oil shocks. Uruguay and Costa Rica power their nations almost entirely with renewables. Europe, scarred by dependency on Russian gas, is pouring capital into clean infrastructure at record pace.
The electric vehicle industry is the clearest fault line. In the U.S., EVs are politicized as “elitist toys,” undermined by cheap gasoline and hostile policy. In China, they are democratized — affordable, ubiquitous, climate-friendly. In Europe, they are industrial survival strategies. In India, they are geopolitical insurance. The car, once the universal icon of fossil modernity, is now the mirror of each nation’s vulnerabilities and ambitions.
The lesson of EVP — Energy, Vulnerability, Power — is blunt. Fossil abundance breeds delay and coercion; fossil scarcity breeds innovation and resolve. Where oil and gas confer leverage, incumbents will weaponize them to slow the transition. Where they confer dependency, societies will race to escape them with wind, solar, batteries, and affordable EVs. That is why the center of gravity for the next energy era is shifting toward the fossil-poor: China and India out of necessity, Europe out of security, much of Latin America out of both.
History will not reward those who stall. The twenty-first century will be shaped by the nations that make clean power cheap and electric mobility universal. The future belongs to those who build it — not to those who block it.
References
AP News (2025) Trump halts work on New England offshore wind project that’s nearly complete. 22 August. [online] Available at: https://apnews.com [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
Axios (2025) US renewable investment falls by 36% in first half of 2025. 15 July. [online] Available at: https://axios.com [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
BloombergNEF (2024) Global EV Outlook 2024. Bloomberg New Energy Finance. [online] Available at: https://about.bnef.com [Accessed 20 Aug. 2025].
E&E News by POLITICO (2025) Trump adviser says pollution, not climate, is priority. 10 August. [online] Available at: https://eenews.net [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
Financial Times (2025) European green investment stands to gain at US’s expense. 25 August. [online] Available at: https://ft.com [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023) World Energy Outlook 2023. Paris: IEA. [online] Available at: https://iea.org/weo2023 [Accessed 20 Aug. 2025].
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2024) Renewable Capacity Statistics 2024. Abu Dhabi: IRENA. [online] Available at: https://irena.org [Accessed 20 Aug. 2025].
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Geneva: IPCC. [online] Available at: https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr [Accessed 15 Aug. 2025].
New York Times (2025a) Davenport, C. and Tankersley, J. Trump uses oil diplomacy to pressure nations on climate rules. 27 August. [online] Available at: https://nytimes.com/2025/08/27/climate/trump-international-pressure-climate-oil.html [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
New York Times (2025b) Gettleman, J. and Raj, S. India’s solar exports face collapse under new US tariffs. 27 August. [online] Available at: https://nytimes.com/2025/08/27/climate/india-solar-panels-tariff-exports.html [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
Omni (2025) Trump försöker stoppa omvärldens klimatarbete. 27 August. [online] Available at: https://omni.se/a/Jbz3b8 [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
Reuters (2025a) US halt of wind project hurts New England grid reliability and jobs, officials say. 24 August. [online] Available at: https://reuters.com [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
Reuters (2025b) US tariffs to worsen India solar panel glut as domestic bidding slows. 28 August. [online] Available at: https://reuters.com [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
Reuters (2025c) India taking steps to diversify exports and boost demand, trade minister says. 29 August. [online] Available at: https://reuters.com [Accessed 29 Aug. 2025].
Reuters (2025d) India’s Waaree Energies says US anti-dumping probe won’t derail solar ambitions. 29 July. [online] Available at: https://reuters.com [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
The Guardian (2025) Ørsted shares fall as US offshore wind project halted. 23 August. [online] Available at: https://theguardian.com [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
The Washington Post (2025) Offshore wind faces political headwinds under Trump. 21 August. [online] Available at: https://washingtonpost.com [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
Wikipedia (2025) United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
World Bank (2024) Commodity Markets Outlook: The Green Transition and Critical Minerals. Washington, DC: World Bank. [online] Available at: https://worldbank.org/commodities [Accessed 15 Aug. 2025].
The author
Germán Toro Ghio is one of the rare voices capable of moving seamlessly across the borders of energy, politics, and culture. With his distinctive style and profound knowledge, he has built an audience of over 250,000 readers worldwide. In just the past three days, his work has attracted more than 30,000 reads on LinkedIn — a record-breaking surge — confirming his position as a key figure in the global debate on energy and power.
As an Expert in The Energy Collective and a contributor to Energy Central’s Power Perspectives series, Toro Ghio has distinguished himself by making the complex interactions of markets, geopolitics, and infrastructure more understandable.
The Toro Ghio’s journey extends far beyond kilowatts and contracts. Before entering the energy sector, he explored the worlds of literature, diplomacy, and cultural policy. He served as Executive Secretary of the Forum of Culture Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean; he co-authored Colombia en el Planeta with William Ospina and Beatriz Caballero of the La Candelaria Theatre Group for the UNDP; he collaborated with Nicaraguan poet-priest Ernesto Cardenal; and, with the encouragement of Octavio Paz, he revived Carlos Martínez Rivas’s La insurrección solitaria—restoring Central American poetry to its rightful place in twentieth-century literature.
As a writer, he has published works ranging from Nicaragua Year 5—the documentary testimony in images, catalogued by Lund University—to The Non Man’s Land and Other Tales. He has directed and overseen literary editions such as Joven arte dominicano, promoted by Casa de Teatro in Santo Domingo and distributed to universities across the world.
Chilean filmmaker and political scientist Juan Forch, a key figure in Chile’s pivotal 1990 “NO” campaign—later portrayed in Pablo Larraín’s Oscar-nominated film No—has described Toro Ghio’s narratives as enriching our understanding of history beyond traditional battlefields and royal courts. He highlights journeys that seamlessly transition “from the discomfort of a Moscow hotel to the exhilaration of the Nicaraguan jungle.”
