2026 Starts With a Bang

2026 Starts With a Bang

Last updated January 15, 2026 3:00 pm (EST)

Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

This is a limited excerpt from the Climate Realism Initiative Newsletter. Sign up to receive monthly insights from the initiative's fellows and staff, including articles, videos, podcasts, events, and more.

Climate & Energy Stories to Watch in 2026

More From Our Experts


The last twelve months have marked extraordinary changes to U.S. climate and energy policy. From the effective dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act to new regulatory roadblocks for renewables and a fresh withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, 2025 established a high bar for drama. Yet, with the confetti barely cleared from Times Square and the college football national championship still to be settled, this new year seems determined to exceed its predecessor.  

More on:

Climate Change

Climate Realism

As 2026 begins, these are some of the climate and energy stories that the Climate Realism Initiative will be watching. 

Electricity: The New Price of Eggs

Average residential electricity prices in the United States rose by nearly 5 percent [PDF] in 2025, a trend expected to continue in 2026. With “affordability” staking out an early lead as the buzzword of this year’s midterms, steadily escalating electricity prices could become a consequential political issue. One advocate has even called electricity prices “the new price of eggs.” 

Increased demand from data centers and artificial intelligence (AI) has become the go-to bogeyman, though the reality is more nuanced. According to a recent study, the costs of replacing aging grid infrastructure have played a more important role nationally; wildfires, severe storms, and fluctuating fuel prices have also been significant drivers in states like California, Florida, and Maine. Demand-driven price increases linked to data centers are beginning to emerge, though, especially in the PJM Interconnection, a section of the grid covering parts of the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest. 

More From Our Experts

However complex the reality, it seems likely that AI will remain the shorthand villain in the public discourse as the midterm elections ramp up. Already, public opposition has scuppered proposed data centers in Arizona and Indiana, and electricity demand from AI became a prominent campaign issue in statewide races in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia in 2025. Nearly a dozen competitive House seats and multiple Senate seats will be up for grabs in PJM’s service area alone, suggesting that AI and electricity prices could play a significant or even decisive role in the contest for Congress this November.  

Orinoco Flow 

The United States’ January 3 incursion into Venezuela was an extraordinary act. Less a regime change war than a regime cooptation exercise, the dead-of-night military operation to seize President Nicolás Maduro largely preserved the architecture of his regime, apparently aiming to leverage it to achieve U.S. aims.  

More on:

Climate Change

Climate Realism

The White House’s nominal goal is to lower oil prices to $50 per barrel, but a number of significant challenges stand in its way. Venezuelan oil infrastructure needs billions of dollars in repairs after decades of mismanagement, and amidst an uncertain legal and security framework, U.S. oil majors are leery of committing. Even if the $50 per barrel target were to be achieved, moreover, it’s not obvious that would be good for U.S. producers; that return is near or even below the price of production for new wells in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, parts of Texas, and even Venezuela itself.  

Given those and other difficulties, Venezuelan oil is unlikely to have a material impact on global markets in 2026, but there is still plenty to keep an eye on. U.S. control stems from its partial blockade of the country, which is currently being enforced by a carrier strike group and other warships, dozens of aircraft, and more than fifteen thousand U.S. service members. The opportunity costs of that commitment could become difficult to accept if other global hotspots begin to flare. Even a force of that size, moreover, is insufficient for extended ground operations, making it unclear what would happen if the security situation deteriorated. And money remains an open question—both the potential for U.S. taxpayer support for oil investment in Venezuela, and what happens to the proceeds of any oil sales.  

Imperium and Its Discontents

The incursion into Venezuela is only one of the unilateral actions recently taken or threatened by the Trump administration. In just the opening days of 2026, it threatened a military takeover of Greenland and announced its intention to withdraw from dozens of international bodies, including a major climate treaty, and there are signs that patience is starting to wear thin.

On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Congress is beginning to find its voice. Bipartisan bills have been introduced in both houses aiming to block any attempt to seize Greenland; even House Speaker Mike Johnson, normally a staunch ally of the White House, told reporters that a military takeover of the island “would not be appropriate.” Those steps follow other bipartisan votes signaling opposition to ongoing military engagement in Venezuela. And, as my colleague David M. Hart recently wrote, congressional appropriators substantially rejected proposed cuts to energy research and development. 

Internationally, NATO countries have begun to hedge against the possibility that Washington will abrogate its commitments, with new national service plans announced in France and Germany and pressure for ramped up defense spending in the UK. More ominously for the alliance, Denmark is sending naval assets to Greenland and signaling its intention to conduct military exercises in the region with other NATO allies, notably not including the United States.

It’s important not to overstate these trends; Congress remains largely compliant with the president's wishes, and the world’s ability to impose consequences on the United States is limited. Taken together, however, they may signal a reduction in political operating room for the White House both at home and abroad.

Termite Troubles

Over the past year, the United States made sprawling cuts to agencies working to predict, prepare for, and recover from climate-related disasters. Ten percent of meteorologists working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) left the agency in the first half of 2025, a development previous administrators called a “nightmare scenario.” More than one hundred climate-related research projects have been cancelled, billions of dollars in energy-related grants to states are locked in legal limbo, and science resources for the public have been pulled offline. FEMA announced plans to cancel programs helping communities prepare for natural disasters, and an executive order [PDF] signaled that states should bear much more responsibility for disaster response, an expense many of them can ill afford.

There is, of course, often no way to know whether an individual program is the difference between making a discovery and saving a life or not. And it may well be that an intentional review could have found more efficient ways to protect taxpayers with those dollars. But it is worth considering, as 2026 unfolds, how these cuts may be invisibly eating away at the country’s ability to withstand climate risks, making it less resilient in a warming world.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Immigration and Migration

The White House’s growing travel ban is now shutting down immigrant visa processing indefinitely for seventy-five countries, including Brazil, Iran, Russia, and Somalia, among several others.  

 

United States

Far from being evidence of Donald Trump’s policy schizophrenia, recent developments reflect an administration-wide effort to restore the international order that prevailed before World War I, when America was more restrained in its global ambitions and more secure in its neighborhood. But the costs of such a shift could be profound.