Connect with us

Published

on

Recently, Republicans received some favorable climate-related coverage. Utah’s 3rd District Congressman John Curtis announced the formation of a Conservative Climate Caucus. It came with a roster of roughly 60 Congresspeople, none of them particularly well known names. While they are light on content, they have sufficient info on their site to make a few early assessments. It’s possible that their actual actions will pleasantly surprise me, but the start is inauspicious.

First, though, it’s worth looking at some prior art in conservative climate actions.

There have been a few Republicans at the climate change table in the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus for years, and they include big names like Romney, Murkowski, Graham, Rubio, and Gaetz, all of whom are missing from the new Caucus (although it’s easy to understand why Gaetz wasn’t invited). And until the 2018 midterms, they were actually fully bi-partisan as their policy, with newcomers required to join in matched pairs.

Their solution is a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend, along with reduced regulation. It’s a good policy, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough and it would have needed to start in 1990. We need governments to make tough choices, we need carrots to draw first-movers, and we need sticks to beat recalcitrant industries with. A carbon fee that’s low and capped at a too-low rate is exactly one policy lever. The carbon fee and dividend is bog-standard conservative economic policy, outside of Libertarian ideologues. Place a price on negative externalities and let the market take care of the rest.

The Climate Leadership Council is another legacy group focused on climate action. It was founded by senior Republican luminaries including former Secretaries of State James A. Baker and George P. Shultz, and Rob Walton, former Chairman of Walmart. Its focus is a revenue-neutral climate fee and dividend as well, along with a side helping of deregulation. Since its very conservative founding, it’s branched out to be a bi-partisan effort as well, and gained approval of Nobel Laureates in economics and corporate sponsorship. That corporate involvement is telling, by the way. There are 8 big fossil fuel-oriented emitters in the set, all of which have been doing quite well at greenwashing and notably less well at actually eliminating fossil fuels. When BHP, ExxonMobil, and BP are bellying up to the bar, the reasonable question of greenwashing arises. But the policies include a border carbon adjustment as well, and there are worse policy sets. They would start their fee at $40 per ton per the report and increase it above inflation until it hit $80, which is too low, but still better than nothing.

So many conservative policy strategists and economists favor carbon taxes. But watch what happens when sensible administrations implement this conservative Pigovian tax:

  • In Australia, center-left Labor brought a carbon tax in. The right-wing Liberals — with the support of the Oz version of the Heritage Foundation and coal baron money — derided it utterly, fought an election on it, and when they won, canceled it.
  • In Canada, the centrist Liberals brought in a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend to tax payers. The increasingly right-wing Conservatives derided it, fought two elections against it, thankfully losing both, and in a recent policy convention, refused to include climate change and action in their policies.

It’s like the Affordable Care Act, a Republican-created and tested policy that the conservative Obama Administration brought in. The Republicans immediately derided it as ObamaCare and fought tooth and nail against it for years. Consistency and so-called conservative parties like the Republicans don’t go hand in hand anymore.

So the new Republican-only Conservative Climate Caucus exists in a context. It doesn’t have big names associated with it. It’s inherently partisan. It’s entered a place where two pre-existing, well structured, well thought-through actually conservative caucuses and political action groups with senior Republican engagement already exist. And it doesn’t have a coherent policy it stands behind.

But it does have a set of ‘beliefs’, and they’ve already tipped their hand about what they are really all about. Let’s look at what they believe, point by point.

“The climate is changing, and decades of a global industrial era that has brought prosperity to the world has also contributed to that change.”

“Contributed to.” Right. The science is clear that we would be experiencing very slow cooling in a stable climate, but instead are seeing radically rapid heating, over 100 times faster than the heating which melted the continental glaciers 20-25 thousand years ago.

So yes, this is a belief. It’s not the reality. But that’s also not a policy indicator, so we can somewhat ignore it.

“Private sector innovation, American resources, and R&D investment have resulted in lower emissions and affordable energy, placing the United States as the global leader in reducing emissions.”

“Global leader.” Right. Germany is off 40% in GHG emissions since 1990. US emissions are about the same as they were in 1990, after having risen through 2010 or so. You have to cherrypick your timeframes to pretend the US is a global leader in emissions reduction when its per capita emissions are still among the highest in the world and its historical emissions are a full 25% of the global historical total.

This is a point of faith on the right. They really seem to believe this is true. So yes, more unsupported belief, not reality. And also not policy, although it’s a pointer to policy.

“Climate change is a global issue and China is the greatest immediate obstacle to reducing world emissions. Solutions should reduce global emissions and not just be “feel good” policies.”

China is not the greatest immediate obstacle in the real world. It is on track to hitting its (admittedly weak) Paris Agreement targets nine years early. It built as much wind and solar in 2020 as the rest of the world combined, 72 GW of wind and 48 GW of solar. It has 38,000 km of high-speed electrified passenger rail in operation, enough to circle the equator. It has well over 400,000 electric buses on the roads of its cities when no other country has 1,000 in operation. It buys 50% of all electric vehicles. It builds virtually all of the solar panels used globally. Chinese firms are two of the top five global wind turbine manufacturers.

China remained signatory to the Paris Agreement and acted when Republicans took the US out of the Agreement and regressed. For the past four years, the largest single obstacle to climate action was the United States. This is Sinophobic posturing, and indicative of policy that will not be useful. It sells well, and Biden does it too, but it remains harmful, finger-pointing nonsense.

And yet again, not policy, just a pointer to where policy might go.

“Practical and exportable answers can be found in innovation embraced by the free market. Americans and the rest of the world want access to cheaper, reliable, and cleaner energy.”

“Innovation” is a right-wing mantra as well. What it translates to is research funding, funding for the fossil fuel industries for failed carbon capture technologies, and yet more billions for nuclear energy. Innovation has already been embraced by the free market. It’s called wind and solar power. And it’s delivering cheaper, reliable, and actually clean — not ‘cleaner’ — energy globally today.

Germany and Denmark are running well over 40% on renewable electricity and their grid reliability metrics are vastly better than the US’. The average German and Dane see less than 15 minutes of power interruptions annually.

No one in the US sees anything approaching that level of reliability.

But this suggests policies. They extrapolate to:

These are no climate-friendly policies. These are fossil fuel industry friendly policies.

“With innovative technologies, fossil fuels can and should be a major part of the global solution.”

No, they won’t. This is #hopium from the fossil fuel industry, the Republican’s primary sponsors. The fossil fuel industry has to dwindle to a petrochemicals industry providing industrial feedstocks, perhaps 20% of a barrel, probably less.

This is indicative of energy and climate policies which are not about the greatest good for the greatest number, but the greatest good for the smallest number, specifically fossil fuel oligarchs like the Kochs.

“Reducing emissions is the goal, not reducing energy choices.”

Eliminating emissions is the goal, and some energy choices do not make that at all possible. Physics makes that very clear. More meat for the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the climate here.


So what this all means is that if — big if — Republicans actually come up with a climate policy at the federal level based on the new Caucus, it will be pretty much what Trump did.

  • Point fingers at other countries
  • Give lots of money and love to the fossil fuel industry
  • Pretend that the US is a leader, as opposed to a laggard

There is no intersection visible between the sane, empirically based policies of the Democratic Party, which is actually focused on the greatest good for the greatest number, and the policies of the Republican Party at this point.

Organize now to keep them out of power in 2022 and 2024.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

This new wireless e-bike charger wants to be the future of electric bikes

Published

on

By

This new wireless e-bike charger wants to be the future of electric bikes

Forget fumbling with cables or hunting for batteries – TILER is making electric bike charging as seamless as parking your ride. The Dutch startup recently introduced its much-anticipated TILER Compact system, a plug-and-play wireless charger engineered to transform the user experience for e-bike riders.

At the heart of the new system is a clever combo: a charging kickstand that mounts directly to almost any e‑bike, and a thin charging mat that you simply park over. Once you drop the kickstand and it lands on the mat, the bike begins charging automatically via inductive transfer – no cable required. According to TILER, a 500 Wh battery will fully charge in about 3.5 hours, delivering comparable performance to traditional wired chargers.

It’s an elegantly simple concept (albeit a bit chunky) with a convenient upside: less clutter, fewer broken cables, and no more need to bend over while feeling around for a dark little hole.

TILER claims its system works with about 75% of existing e‑bike platforms, including those from Bosch, Yamaha, Bafang, and other big bames. The kit uses a modest 150 W wireless power output, which means charging speeds remain practical while keeping the system lightweight (the tile weighs just 2 kg, and it’s also stationary).

Advertisement – scroll for more content

TILER has already deployed over 200 charging points across Western Europe, primarily serving bike-share, delivery, hospitality, and hotel fleets. A recent case study in Munich showed how a cargo-bike operator saved approximately €1,250 per month in labor costs, avoided thousands in spare batteries, and cut battery damage by 20%. The takeaway? Less maintenance, more uptime.

Now shifting to prosumer markets, TILER says the Compact system will hit pre-orders soon, with a €250 price tag (roughly US $290) for the kickstand plus tile bundle. To get in line, a €29 refundable deposit is currently required, though they say it is refundable at any point until you receive your charger. Don’t get too excited just yet though, there’s a bit of a wait. Deliveries are expected in summer 2026, and for now are covering mostly European markets.

The concept isn’t entirely new. We’ve seen the idea pop up before, including in a patent from BMW for charging electric motorcycles. And the efficacy is there. Skeptics may wonder if wireless charging is slower or less efficient, but TILER says no. Its system retains over 85% efficiency, nearly matching wired charging speeds, and even pauses at 80% to protect battery health, then resumes as needed. The tile is even IP67-rated, safe for outdoor use, and about as bulky as a thick magazine.

Electrek’s Take

I love the concept. It makes perfect sense for shared e-bikes, especially since they’re often returning to a dock anyway. As long as people can be trained to park with the kickstand on the tile, it seems like a no-brainer.

And to be honest, I even like the idea for consumers. I know it sounds like a first-world problem, but bending over to plug something in at floor height is pretty annoying, not to mention a great way to throw out your back if you’re not exactly a spring chicken anymore. Having your e-bike start charging simply by parking it in the right place is a really cool feature! I don’t know if it’s $300 cool, but it’s pretty cool!

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla launches new software update with Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car

Published

on

By

Tesla launches new software update with Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car

Tesla has launched a new software update for its vehicles that includes the anticipated integration of Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car yet.

Earlier this week, CEO Elon Musk said that Tesla would integrate Grok, the large language model developed by his private company, xAI, into its vehicles.

Today, Tesla started pushing the update to the fleet, but there’s a significant caveat.

The automaker wrote in the release notes (2025.26):

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Grok (Beta) (US, AMD)

Grok now available directly in your Tesla

Requires Premium Connectivity or a WiFi connection

Grok is currently in Beta & does not issue commands to your car – existing voice commands remain unchanged.

First off, it is only available in vehicles in the US equipped with the AMD infotainment computer, which means cars produced since mid-2021.

But more importantly, Tesla says that it doesn’t send commands to the car under the current version. Therefore, it is simply like having Grok on your phone, but on the onboard computer instead.

Tesla showed an example:

There are a few other features in the 2025.26 software update, but they are not major.

For Tesla vehicles equipped with ambient lighting strips inside the car, the light strip can now sync to music:

Accent lights now respond to music & you can also choose to match the lights to the album’s color for a more immersive effect

Toybox > Light Sync

Here’s the new setting:

The audio setting can now be saved under multiple presets to match listening preferences for different people or circumstances:

The software update also includes the capacity to zoom or adjust the playback speed of the Dashcam Viewer.

Cybertruck also gets the updated Dashcam Viewer app with a grid view for easier access and review of recordings:

Tesla also updated the charging info in its navigation system to be able to search which locations require valet service or pay-to-park access.

Upon arrival, drivers will receive a notification with access codes, parking restrictions, level or floor information, and restroom availability:

Finally, there’s a new onboarding guide directly on the center display to help people who are experiencing a Tesla vehicle for the first time.

Electrek’s Take

Tesla is really playing catch-up here. Right now, this update is essentially nothing. If you already have Grok, it’s no more different than having it on your phone or through the vehicle’s browser, since it has no capacity to interact with any function inside the vehicle.

Most other automakers are integrating LLMs inside vehicles with the capacity to interact with the vehicle. In China, this is becoming standard even in entry-level cars.

In the Xiaomi YU7, the vehicle’s AI can not only interact with the car, but it also sees what the car sees through its camera, and it can tell you about what it sees:

Tesla is clearly far behind on that front as many automakers are integrating with other LLMs like ChatGPT and in-house LLMs, like Xiaomi’s.

Continue Reading

Environment

Robinhood is up 160% this year, but several obstacles are ahead

Published

on

By

Robinhood is up 160% this year, but several obstacles are ahead

Florida AG opens probe into Robinhood. Here's the latest

Robinhood stock hit an all-time high Friday as the financial services platform continued to rip higher this year, along with bitcoin and other crypto stocks.

Robinhood, up more than 160% in 2025, hit an intraday high above $101 before pulling back and closing slightly lower.

The reversal came after a Bloomberg report that JPMorgan plans to start charging fintechs for access to customer bank data, a move that could raise costs across the industry.

For fintech firms that rely on thin margins to offer free or low-cost services to customers, even slight disruptions to their cost structure can have major ripple effects. PayPal and Affirm both ended the day nearly 6% lower following the report.

Despite its stellar year, the online broker is facing several headwinds, with a regulatory probe in Florida, pushback over new staking fees and growing friction with one of the world’s most high-profile artificial intelligence companies.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier opened a formal investigation into Robinhood Crypto on Thursday, alleging the platform misled users by claiming to offer the lowest-cost crypto trading.

“Robinhood has long claimed to be the best bargain, but we believe those representations were deceptive,” Uthmeier said in a statement.

The probe centers on Robinhood’s use of payment for order flow — a common practice where market makers pay to execute trades — which the AG said can result in worse pricing for customers.

Robinhood Crypto General Counsel Lucas Moskowitz told CNBC its disclosures are “best-in-class” and that it delivers the lowest average cost.

“We disclose pricing information to customers during the lifecycle of a trade that clearly outlines the spread or the fees associated with the transaction, and the revenue Robinhood receives,” added Moskowitz.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev explains 'dual purpose' behind trading platform's new crypto offerings

Robinhood is also facing opposition to a new 25% cut of staking rewards for U.S. users, set to begin October 1. In Europe, the platform will take a smaller 15% cut.

Staking allows crypto holders to earn yield by locking up their tokens to help secure blockchain networks like ethereum, but platforms often take a percentage of those rewards as commission.

Robinhood’s 25% cut puts it in line with Coinbase, which charges between 25.25% and 35% depending on the token. The cut is notably higher than Gemini’s flat 15% fee.

It marks a shift for the company, which had previously steered clear of staking amid regulatory uncertainty.

Under President Joe Biden‘s administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission cracked down on U.S. platforms offering staking services, arguing they constituted unregistered securities.

With President Donald Trump in the White House, the agency has reversed course on several crypto enforcement actions, dropping cases against major players like Coinbase and Binance and signaling a more permissive stance.

Even as enforcement actions ease, Robinhood is under fresh scrutiny for its tokenized stock push, which is a growing part of its international strategy.

The company now offers blockchain-based assets in Europe that give users synthetic exposure to private firms like OpenAI and SpaceX through special purpose vehicles, or SPVs.

An SPV is a separate entity that acquires shares in a company. Users then buy tokens of the SPV and don’t have shareholder privileges or voting rights directly in the company.

OpenAI has publicly objected, warning the tokens do not represent real equity and were issued without its approval. In an interview with CNBC International, CEO Vlad Tenev acknowledged the tokens aren’t technically equity shares, but said that misses the broader point.

JPMorgan announces plans to charge for access to customer bank data

“What’s important is that retail customers have an opportunity to get exposure to this asset,” he said, pointing to the disruptive nature of AI and the historically limited access to pre-IPO companies.

“It is true that these are not technically equity,” Tenev added, noting that institutional investors often gain similar exposure through structured financial instruments.

The Bank of Lithuania — Robinhood’s lead regulator in the EU — told CNBC on Monday that it is “awaiting clarifications” following OpenAI’s statement.

“Only after receiving and evaluating this information will we be able to assess the legality and compliance of these specific instruments,” a spokesperson said, adding that information for investors must be “clear, fair, and non-misleading.”

Tenev responded that Robinhood is “happy to continue to answer questions from our regulators,” and said the company built its tokenized stock program to withstand scrutiny.

“Since this is a new thing, regulators are going to want to look at it,” he said. “And we expect to be scrutinized as a large, innovative player in this space.”

SEC Chair Paul Atkins recently called the model “an innovation” on CNBC’s Squawk Box, offering some validation as Robinhood leans further into its synthetic equity strategy — even as legal clarity remains in flux across jurisdictions.

Despite the regulatory noise, many investors remain focused on Robinhood’s upside, and particularly the political tailwinds.

The company is positioning itself as a key beneficiary of Trump’s newly signed megabill, which includes $1,000 government-seeded investment accounts for newborns. Robinhood said it’s already prototyping an app for the ‘Trump Accounts‘ initiative.

WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev

Watch CNBC's full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev

Continue Reading

Trending