In the U.S., where politics have become increasingly polarized, major issues like climate change and alternative energy are at the forefront of political debate. Recently, renewable energy projects like wind and solar fields have seen mixed results among the public. Despite increases in efficiency, popularity has slowed and even declined. Though the majority of Americans still support renewable forms of energy, disagreements arise on how change should be carried out.
While Democrats like President Biden and President Obama advocated for renewable energy expansion, there has been an effort against this led by Republicans such as President Trump. His chief reasons are his concern for the security of the economy and nation as a whole. Renewable energy sources and the policies that support them are seen by Trump as detrimental to job creation, electricity generation, and energy costs for Americans. To Trump, the perceived economic benefits of using fossil fuels and other nonrenewable forms of energy significantly outweigh any positives brought on by renewable energy.
Notably, Trump ended subsidies for renewable energy sources in his recent One Big Beautiful Act in an effort to fuel economic growth with “reliable, dispatchable energy,” like fossil fuels. However, studies and programs have found that alternative energy offers economic growth opportunities in rural communities, such as job creation and lower energy costs. In addition to economic advantages, renewable energy offers environmental benefits, such as reduced carbon emissions and air pollution. This is exactly why the government, during times of Democratic leadership, has chosen to invest in alternative energy in rural areas with programs like REAP (Rural Energy for America Program), which offers an array of capabilities and funding initiatives. In fact, Democrats are far more likely to support renewable and alternative energy than Republicans, as evidenced by the Trump administration’s suspension of the REAP program. Nowhere are the effects of this partisanship more evident than in rural areas, which, despite the benefits that alternative energy offers, have remained resistant to it due to the increasingly politicized environment surrounding alternative energy.
An abundance of land in rural America makes it central in the battle over renewable energy. Just miles from my home in North-Central Ohio, farmland has been converted into several solar fields. This expansion of solar projects in Ohio and throughout the Midwest is due in part to the tax credits, which help the industry increase profitability. Yet, such a project did not come without some public backlash in the form of anti-solar yard signs and organizations created to oppose solar projects in my area.
While alternative energy has both environmental and economic benefits, it does bring challenges. Namely, non-renewable energy is proven to be much more energy-dense and therefore more practical for everyday needs like transportation. The up-front costs of renewables are also a concern, but a recent report by the International Renewable Energy Agency tells a different story, one where around 90% of new renewable energy projects are less expensive than traditional fossil fuel options. Still, the biggest concern about alternative energy from rural communities is its increased land usage. Research done by the American Farmland Trust shows that 83% of solar farms will be built on land previously used for agriculture. Even with these land usage concerns, solutions such as agrivoltaics, where land is used both for agriculture and solar projects, exist nationwide.
Despite the significant benefits of alternative energy in terms of job creation and government investment, rural communities continue to align themselves with the interests of the Republican Party, which they overwhelmingly support. Party leaders such as President Trump and even Tennessee Governor Bill Lee continue to urge Republicans to oppose renewable energy projects, and recent legislation across the country has supported that view. In Kansas and Maine, governors have issued moratoriums on certain renewable energy projects, and in Ohio, Governor DeWine signed Senate Bill 52 into law, which allows county leadership to decide if certain solar or wind farms can be built on their land. Instead of focusing on the proven benefits, rural alternative energy opposition seems to focus on perceived drawbacks that are supported by the party as a whole.
In reality, facts, not ideology, should be the basis for the decision to execute alternative energy projects. That is not to say that everyone in rural communities should be in favor of alternative energy projects, but it should not be a decision that is made by a single party. Educating individual voters and community members about the data must be the primary goal of the parties.
