Energy Entrepreneur Chris Wright Will Make a Great Energy Secretary

 Politico reports that Chris Wright has been confirmed by the Senate for Energy Secretary. This is great news! Not surprisingly, the Washington Post previously ran an article during his confirmation hearings that Trump energy pick misinterprets studies to support claims, scientists say, which claims that “Chris Wright cites data to back his claim there is no climate crisis. Authors of the papers he cites say he is misinterpreting their work.”

But Roger Pielke Jr., a contributor to the IPCC and expert on climate and climate damage impacts, countered with “The Washington Post published what can only be described as a hit piece on the nominee for Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright.”

I posted these Comments on the WAPO article, which for some reason were removed:

“Scientists say!” OK, but what’s the whole truth? What is often missed is that what the IPCC actually says is not the same as what someone says it says. Roger Pieke Jr. clears up this charade in his detailed report U.S. Hurricane Overview 2024. Pielke sets quotes from this article next to quotes from the IPCC research. Wright actually gets it right. 

Unfortunately, weather and climate have become so politicized by the Left that misinformation is rampant. That’s why Energy entrepreneur Chris Wright is a GREAT CHOICE for Energy Secretary! Not only is he an expert in fossil fuel production, by far our most vital energy source, he’s not corrupted by the Chicken Little "climate crisis" hysteria and its blind, fanatical push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by strangling fossil fuel production. While recognizing that climate warming is a concern, Wright knows it's not the only concern or even the most important one. Wright realizes that reliable, affordable, plentiful energy is vastly more important to human well-being than a slightly cooler world. 

In a field of Trump cabinet appointees that is very mixed, to put it mildly, Chris Wright is one of Trump's best, and he'll be working with another good pick, Doug Burgum, who will be the chairman of Trump's new Council of National Energy. Our energy security will be in much safer hands and more affordable than under the current policies. And robust reliable energy production is precisely what we’ll need if indeed it turns out that weather extremes do intensify. 

I also posted on Facebook:

Energy entrepreneur Chris Wright is a GREAT CHOICE for Energy Secretary! Out will go the Chicken Little "climate crisis" hysteria with its blind, fanatical push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by strangling fossil fuel production. While recognizing that climate warming is a concern, Wright knows it's not the only concern or even the most important one. Wright realizes that reliable, affordable, plentiful energy is vastly more important to human well-being than a 1 degree cooler world. I agree with Robert Bryce that "Wright will have his hands full cleaning house at the DOE, an agency that has, under [current Secretary] Granholm, been captured by anti-hydrocarbon NGOs and the anti-industry industry . . . A lot of damage has been done to our electric grid and to America’s energy sector over the past few years. It’s hard to imagine a better repairman than Chris Wright."

Wright is one of Trump's best cabinet picks yet, and he'll be working with another good pick, Doug Burgum, who will be the chairman of Trump's new Council of National Energy.

Finally, back in November 2024, POLITICO reported that Trump taps oil executive Chris Wright as Energy secretary. It had this to say: 

The oil executive and GOP fundraiser disputes the need to fight against climate change.

President-elect Donald Trump named oil industry CEO Chris Wright to lead the Energy Department, installing a vocal critic of government efforts to fight climate change as the head of the agency at the forefront of the Biden administration’s clean energy push.

Wright, if confirmed by the Senate, is likely to be one of the loudest voices in the administration against measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that are raising the planet’s temperature and causing an upsurge in extreme weather.

Politico, echoing the Left's talking points, implicitly criticizes energy entrepreneur Chris Wright for being "critical of government efforts to fight climate change [and] the Biden administration’s 'clean energy push,'" as well as being a "voice . . . against measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels." 

Energy entrepreneur Chris Wright is a GREAT CHOICE for Energy Secretary! Out will go the Chicken Little "climate crisis" hysteria with its blind, fanatical push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by strangling fossil fuel production. While realizing that climate warming is a concern, Wright recognizes it's not the only concern or even the most important one. Wright realizes that reliable, affordable, plentiful energy is vastly more important to human well-being than a 1 degree cooler world. I agree with Robert Bryce that "Wright will have his hands full cleaning house at the DOE, an agency that has, under [current Secretary] Granholm, been captured by anti-hydrocarbon NGOs and the anti-industry industry . . . A lot of damage has been done to our electric grid and to America’s energy sector over the past few years. It’s hard to imagine a better repairman than Chris Wright."

Wright is one of Trump's best cabinet picks yet, and he'll be working with another good pick, Doug Burgum, chairman of the new Council of National Energy.

Related Reading:

Chris Wright, An Unapologetic Energy Humanist, Will Be The Next Secretary Of Energy, by Robert Bryce, and energy expert 

For the first time, the DOE will be led by someone from the energy sector.

Energy-sector expertise has never been a prerequisite for the Secretary of Energy. At least, it hasn’t been until now.

That history is relevant because it underscores how remarkable it is that Trump has named Chris Wright, the founder and CEO of Denver-based Liberty Energy, an oilfield services company, as his nominee for Secretary of Energy. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Wright is the most qualified person ever named to that position. As Trump explained in his announcement, “Chris was one of the pioneers who helped launch the American shale revolution that fueled American energy independence, and transformed the global energy markets and geopolitics.”

Trump said that in addition to Energy Secretary, Wright will serve on the new Council of National Energy led by Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota, who is Trump’s nominee for Interior Secretary.

Climate Change Catastrophists Who Oppose Nuclear have Anti-Humanist Premises

Challenge the ‘100% Renewables” Fanatics on their Underlying anti-Humanism

Human Energy Needs vs. 'Mother Earth'

“Peoples Climate March” is No Friend of Humanity

The Environmentalists’ War on People—Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard

"Citizens Climate Lobby" Turns to Force to Protect Nature at Human Expense

In NJ, Wind Energy Requires ‘Political Commitment’. That’s Precisely the Problem.

In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, Offshore wind is a jobs magnet for New Jersey, and labor is ready to lead, legislator says NJ state assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo enthusiastically promotes a massive offshore wind project. The key point DeAngelo makes is this telling statement, buried near the end of the article:

“Wind power can fuel New Jersey, and what fuels wind power is political commitment.”

So true, and precisely why it shouldn’t be built. “Political commitment” means force; that is, special interests using the machinery of government to force on all of us it’s pet technology, by direct subsidy and/or hampering alternatives—in this case an unreliable, costly energy source that no one would willingly invest in, build, or pay for without ratepayer/taxpayer subsidies and other government favors. No industry should be fueled by government coercion. Wind energy should succeed only by voluntary market acceptance, or fail. 

As to jobs, there is no doubt government-driven wind projects create jobs. But the jobs not created, or destroyed, must also be considered. Money spent on fossil fuel and nuclear power projects also create jobs. I understand DeAngelo is an electrician, and represents the electricians union which would get a jobs bonanza from giant wind farms. But the plumbing/pipefitters union, of which I am a member (ret), goes to bat for pipelines, which are being restricted by political commitment. So he can’t speak for all building trades unions. The same interests who push wind often want to stop fossil fuel projects, costing a lot of plumbing/pipefitting jobs. And the extra money consumers spend on the inflated electricity prices that “fuel” subsidized “renewable” energy spending can not be spent in other areas, reducing growth and thus jobs there. Worse, energy fuels every other industry. Raise the overall price of energy, which history shows happens when renewable energy is forced on us, and you take away growth and jobs across the board. Basic economics teaches you’ll end up with fewer jobs.

I’m not against wind farms. I’m against wind power fueled by political commitment. Government should streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, but otherwise leave all energy producers free to compete on a level legal playing field—that is, a market free of political coercion. Only voluntary consumer choice should determine energy choice, not political coercion. Put another way, market commitment, not political commitment, is what we should strive for. 

Wind champions will whine that the dominance of fossil fuels leaves no chance for wind to compete without government help. So they push for a government coercion-fueled “energy transition,” often camouflaged behind “justice” or “democracy” labels. But that’s nonsense. In a free market, better products generally spell doom for the dominant but inferior products, if consumers so choose. That’s how genuine transitions come about: Think of the transistions from kerosene lighting to electric lighting; from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles; from silent movies to “talkies''; from film photography to digital photography; from analogue television to cable and now to streaming. These are a few examples of market transitions, the only legitimate kinds. It just so happens that wind cannot compete in the market because it is inferior in cost and reliability. Even today, in 2022, even after decades of subsidies and government favoritism, fossil fuels are the dominant market choice, which is why they’re still growing like gangbusters despite the utopian dreams and massive political favoritism of wind’s political champions. 

If “Wind power is the future [and] can fuel New Jersey,” why hasn’t it happened already? Why is it a perpetual future fuel? Despite a decades-long massive political push, including $trillions in subsidies worldwide and other government favoritism, no place on Earth does wind generation, and renewable energy more broadly, exist without the life support of reliable energy from fossil, nuclear, or hydro—and for good reason. Renewables simply cannot carry the primary load for well-known reasons, the intractable twin drawbacks of dilutedness and intermittency. 

Perhaps as-of-now unforeseen dramatic technological advances will someday make that possible. But then, it wouldn’t need subsidies, would it? Or for that matter fear-mongering “climate crisis” nonsense. But in a competitive, largely free energy market, solar and wind tech innovations would have to compete against tech progress on other energy sources, including not only fossil fuels but non-carbon energies like nuclear, hydro, and possibly even fusion. That’s as it should be. It’s a matter of justice.

We need political commitment, alright. But that commitment should be directed toward liberating the NJ market for all energy sources, rather than politically favoring some, like wind, while hampering others, like natural gas, which along with petroleum is facing a War on Pipelines. Why are renewables champions so afraid of competition? The answer is obvious for anyone willing to be informed. 

Related Reading;

Hyping the Energy Transition by Robert Bryce

The ‘Jihad on Pipelines,’ New Jersey Front

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

End preferences for unreliable electricity by Alex Epstein

The Real Danger is Not Too Much Heat, but Too Little Reliable Low-Cost Energy

This summer’s heat waves are triggering the predictable hysteria among the climate elites. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, Europe's lead role fighting climate change falls victim to a massive heat wave, is following that script to a tee. The hysteria is complete with the always-reliable Chicken Little hand wringing about “saving the planet from the climate crisis.” 

But while this editorial, which also ran in the 7/23/22 NJ Star-Ledger, laments people prioritizing keeping cool and safe over “fighting climate change,” the real lesson to be drawn from these not-really-unprecedented heat waves is that it is not the weather that we should fear. The real danger is the prospect of running short of the reliable, low-cost energy we need to protect ourselves from these climate dangers due to the Left’s long-running War on Fossil Fuels coupled with their continuing efforts to stifle nuclear power. 

My mission is and has long been to save humanity from the crusading planet savers. That “European countries are now backing away from their commitments to meet carbon-neutral goals” may be bad news for climate catastrophists. But it’s actually good news for humans. 

Related Reading:

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less by Alex Epstein

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin

Fossil Fuels and Climate Change: Remember Life Before Them

A Humanist Approach To Environmental Issues—Alex Epstein @ Forbes

The Suicidal Demonization of Fossil Fuels

Climate Change Catastrophists Who Oppose Nuclear have Anti-Humanist Premises

The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables--Michael Shellenberger

Japan's Earthquake Recovery: "Green Energy's" Failed Test

My Quick Take on 'Opposing Views: Is Climate Change A Problem?'

I just watched Opposing Views: Is Climate Change A Problem? | Alex Epstein & Dr. Andrew Dessler. This is not a debate. It is two separate interviews. And this episode features one of the most dramatically opposing viewpoint presentations I’ve ever seen. Mikhaila Peterson really draws out the essences of the pro-catastrophe versus the pro-human sides of the climate change debate (which is at bottom an energy and political debate).

Here is my quick, though incomplete, take on the episode. But you’ll get the picture:

When someone says, “Just look out the window” to “see” climate change—let alone a “climate crisis”—you know you’re dealing with religion, not science. Just as a religionist can “see” God in anything, so the climate catastrophist can “see” climate change.

When every bad weather event is “evidence” of catastrophic climate change, you know you’re dealing with dogmatism. 

When fossil fuel companies are demonized, but the fossil fuel consumers who willingly buy their products are let off the hook, you know your dealing with injustice and bias. 

When all of the damage caused by extreme weather is labeled a cost of fossil fuel use and a subsidy for fossil fuel companies, even though storms, fires, heat waves, cold waves, et al have always occurred, you know your dealing with dishonesty. 

When the wild swings of climate over the recent past—well documented by Brian Fagan in The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850, which actually covers the multi-century Medieval Warm Period that came before the Little Ice Age—are ignored, you know that you’re dealing with historical white-washing. 

When someone tells you that “the free market won’t work” after the free markets unleashed by the Enlightenment gave us The Great Enrichment, including the ability to vastly increase man’s safety from climate dangers, you know your dealing with a statist who is not concerned with the voluntary choices or well-being of average people.

Dressler’s panic-mongering assertions and “renewable” energy pie-in-the sky propaganda are not much different from what I get from my daily newspapers. Epstein is a breath of fresh air, offering the needed balance, objectivity, and moral clarity. And there are others worth consulting. In addition to Epstein, you can turn to such experts as Pielke Jr, Koonan, Shellenberger, Lomborg, Bailey, Bryce, and Moore, to name a few. I wonder if Dressler’s students are getting the opposing view. They’re probably leaving his classroom with an irrational dread of the future, and being panicked into voting for authoritarianism, at a time when the planet has never been more hospitable for human flourishing, and the future is the brightest young people have ever faced, albeit not without threats from the likes of Environmentalism, socialism, egalitarianism, Wokism, and other anti-human isms. These students are victims of educational malpractice.

 

The points I touch on will be clarified when you watch Opposing Views: Is Climate Change A Problem? | Alex Epstein & Dr. Andrew Dessler. One note: Epstein was interviewed after Dressler, even though Epstein is presented first.

Here is a list of books that anyone who wants to get past the quasi-coordinated efforts by the political/media/crony businessEnvironmentalist complex to convince us that the end of the world is rushing toward us and the only way to avoid the coming catastrophe is to grant the catastrophists totalitarian powers to direct our lives:  

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less by Alex Epstein

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century by Ronald Bailey 

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress -- Steven Pinker

Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us by Michael Shellenberger 

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg 

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr. 

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin  

State of Fear by Michael Crichton 

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein  

A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations by Robert Bryce  

Related Reading:

New U.N. Study Shows Climate Catastrophists Getting More Open About their Totalitarian Designs

‘Climate Crisis’: The Dem’s Path to Totalitarian Socialism

The 'Watermelon' Analogy is Real, and it is Dangerous

Environmentalists, Luddites, and Collectivism

Paris Climate Agreement Adopted: New Central Plan for the World’s Economy and Climate—Ronald Bailey for Reason.com

QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’

 QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’

I posted this answer:

“Pushback on climate change” is unusably vague. So I’ll assume that what is meant is “pushback on government policies to “fight” climate change.” 

The reason is simple. Climate change danger has been vastly exaggerated to advance an anti-human agenda that values raw nature over human life, and that consequently aims to eliminate vital reliable energy; nuclear, hydro, and especially fossil fuels. There is no “climate crisis” (the term itself is conceptually senseless). The truth is, there would be an unprecedented human catastrophe if reliable energy were eliminated in favor of unreliable, super-expensive “renewables” like solar and wind. 

As to weather extremes, there was never a time, in the USA or worldwide, in which there was not “overwhelming proof of weather extremes.” They’ve always existed, and contrary to the perpetually failed predictions of the climate alarmists, there is as of yet little evidence that they are becoming meaningfully more extreme (although the possibility of some weather events becoming more intense in the future are plausible expectation). We’re living in a relatively tame period, in terms of swings in climate and extreme weather. If you want to see weather extremes, read Brian Fagan’s book The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850. What we are experiencing today is not only routine, it is mild compared to the rapid shifts in ocean currents, climate, and extreme weather that people endured during that period. What we have today is more akin to the comparably tranquil conditions of the Medieval Warm Period. *

What is undeniably true today is that climate livability and safety has surged. 

For example, climate related deaths from weather extremes (and natural disasters more generally) have plunged 98% to 99% over the past 100 years. Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey documents that the risk of dying from extreme weather since the 1920s has dropped by 99.75 percent. (Hurricane Ida, Climate Change, and Falling Trends in Global Deaths From Natural Disasters). If you want a really dramatic specific example of the tremendous positive trend in human climate safety and livability, consider two Indian ocean hurricanes of recent weather history, 1970’s  Bhola cyclone and 2019’s Cyclone Bulbul. The two storms struck the same area of India/Bangladesh, and were of comparable strength (tropical cyclones in this part of the world are called simply “cyclones” rather than hurricanes). Bhola killed about 500,000 people, Bulbul 24! As Aljazeera reported,

Bangladesh’s low-lying coast, home to 30 million people, and India’s east are regularly battered by cyclones that have killed hundreds of thousands of people in recent decades.

While the storms’ frequency and intensity have increased – partly due to climate change – the death tolls have come down because of faster evacuations and the building of thousands of coastal shelters.

That’s real progress in protection from extreme weather in just 5 decades, and the progress happened in the time period in which we are constantly told we are facing a “climate crisis.” And it was made possible by the adoption in that part of the world of fossil fuels, including coal, which more broadly powers the industrialization that actually makes us safer from climate dangers.

The statement “we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?” is childish. It’s akin to religionists asserting “overwhelming proof of God” in everything, without ever having to offer proof of anything. There is “such strong pushback on climate change” not because people don’t recognize that climate change is a natural feature of Earth’s weather or that human activity may be influencing climate, but because “climate change” is used to whip up unwarranted hysteria geared toward policies that would cripple industry and consumers of energy and cause, if fully implemented, unimaginable human harm. Climate change hystericists vastly exaggerate the danger while ignoring or minimizing the enormous benefits that accompany human influence on the climate.

Before we consider any political climate agenda, we should start with the age-old wisdom, “First, do no harm.” Don’t let the “climate crisis” hysteria of political and crony business interests, Environmentalist anti-industrial revolutionists, and the concerted media propaganda campaign that backs it to constrict your thinking. There’s more to this story. Broaden your mind. By all means, listen to the alarmists. I do. But be objective. Get informed about the motives behind the climate panic mongering, the vital importance of energy to our everyday lives, the actual facts about extreme weather trends today, the actual history of weather and climate, what the evidence shows about the relationship between weather-related disasters and climate, the positive state of human flourishing and the planet today that the climate fear mongering camouflages, and the continued industrial/technological progress and the enabling Capitalist freedom needed to foster both growing worldwide prosperity and the tools to deal with whatever extreme weather awaits us in the future.   

* [The 2019 edition includes an added Afterword by the author that the original 2000 edition did not have. Unfortunately, the conclusion of that Afterword gives an inexplicable nod to today’s climate catastrophism movement, complete with the usual straw man tactics. I say inexplicable because the last two pages of the Afterword contradicts the entire book. Nonetheless, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850, 2019 edition, provides invaluable context for evaluating today’s raging climate change contraversy and debate.]

Related Reading:

The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign

The Anti-human Tyrade of an Ungrateful 16-Year-old

We Owe Our Children a More Technologically Advanced Society, Not 'Preserved' Nature

It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’

We Are Doomed Without, Not Because of, Fossil Fuel Use

CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND THE INDISPENSABLE VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM—Kieth H. Lockitch 

Capitalist Industrialization, Not Handouts, is “Poor” Countries' Best Protection Against Natural Disasters

Stop ‘Denying’ the View From Outside the Climate Catastrophist Government Establishment