If the goal is a cleaner planet and fewer emissions, why on earth are self-proclaimed environmentalists pouring latex over Tesla robots and suing to stop energy projects?
The narrative has been clear for years: We need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, invest in electric vehicles, and build clean-energy infrastructure. Those advocating for a pragmatic, market-driven approach to climate change have been told that we’re not doing enough, that anything short of banning oil and gas overnight is tantamount to climate denial.
No one is shocked when they protest an oil and gas project. But electric vehicles? Solar farms? Transmission lines? The very groups demanding rapid decarbonization help ensure it never happens. Transmission projects — vital for bringing clean power to more homes — are blocked if they cross scenic landscapes. Solar farms are opposed for taking too much land. In Puerto Rico, where rolling blackouts are a persistent crisis, the Sierra Club is suing to stop a significant solar project, prioritizing procedural hurdles over real-world energy needs.
Then there’s nuclear power — the only large-scale carbon-free energy source that runs 24/7. It should be a no-brainer. Instead, environmentalists have spent decades demonizing it, shutting down plants, and blocking projects. Instead of prioritizing action, the movement has become an industry of outrage — thriving on activism, not outcomes.
Take the reaction to President Trump’s recent announcement that he was buying a Tesla. Rather than celebrating the adoption of electric vehicles, activists responded by setting Teslas on fire.
Meanwhile, major environmental groups say nothing. The message is clear: electric vehicles are great — just not those EVs. If this were indeed about reducing carbon emissions, Elon Musk would be celebrated. Instead, he’s condemned.
Once a hero of the left, Musk is now an enemy — not because his cars suddenly stopped working but because he stopped toeing the progressive line. His support for free speech, his willingness to challenge the Democratic establishment, and now, his decision to work with Trump have made him an enemy.
The consequences of this anti-build, anti-solution mindset are enormous. A Breakthrough Institute report found that 72% of lawsuits under the National Environmental Policy Act came from big green groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The result? Clean energy projects get trapped in litigation purgatory, delaying or killing them outright for years. The United States is on the cusp of an energy revolution. Artificial intelligence, data centers and a rapidly growing economy will require more power, not less. Building clean American energy is impossible when every project is met with a protest, a lawsuit or a purity test.
The future of clean energy won’t be dictated by those who care more about power than prosperity. It will be built by those who refuse to let performative outrage stand in the way of real solutions.
Rob Sisson is the senior advisor for ConservAmerica. Danielle Franz is the CEO of the American Conservation Coalition/InsideSources