WASHINGTON – President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to head the U.S. Department of Energy, Chris Wright, has defended fossil fuels as a crucial tool for ending global poverty, calling it a greater immediate threat than climate change, which he described as a distant concern. Wright, the CEO of Liberty Energy, expressed these views in a corporate report released in February titled “Bettering Human Lives,” where he argued that the energy transition to cleaner alternatives has not truly begun and that hydrocarbons are essential to human development.
Wright contended that poverty could be alleviated by expanding access to energy, particularly fossil fuels, and criticized the growing global emphasis on climate change. “The energy transition has not begun, and climate change, while a challenge, is not the greatest threat to humanity,” he stated, adding that his foundation, which focuses on distributing propane cook stoves to developing nations, is an example of how fossil fuels can improve lives.
However, Wright’s views clash sharply with mainstream climate science, which warns that the burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor to global warming and environmental degradation. Experts argue that the consequences of climate change are increasingly dire, with rising emissions leading to faster-than-expected shifts in the global climate.
Morgan Bazilian, director of the Payne Institute at the Colorado School of Mines, noted that Wright’s stance reflects a broader pushback against the climate policies of President Joe Biden’s administration. “He’s been outspoken on how the oil and gas industry has brought security and development to the U.S.,” Bazilian acknowledged, “but the other thing that’s true is that global emissions aren’t going down.”
In his report, Wright questioned the treatment of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, arguing that carbon is essential for life. His assertions have drawn criticism from climate scientists like Dr. Peter Reich, who called Wright’s logic “terrifyingly absurd.” Reich compared Wright’s stance to ignoring the risks of flooding, pointing out that just because water is essential for life does not mean flooding is not a problem.
Additionally, Wright claimed that polar bear populations were increasing, though experts such as Dr. Charlotte Lindqvist from the University of Buffalo countered that the species is losing critical sea ice habitats. Wright also downplayed the effectiveness of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which have seen a dramatic decline in cost and are increasingly being seen as viable alternatives to fossil fuels. While Wright expressed support for alternatives like small modular nuclear and geothermal energy, he argued that solar and wind are insufficient for addressing energy needs.
Wright’s assertion that deaths from extreme weather have declined over the past century due to increased wealth and energy access was also challenged by climate experts. Dr. Drew Shindell of Duke University described Wright’s argument as a tactic of stating facts that are “correct but irrelevant to the actual questions at hand,” pointing out that no one is suggesting society should abandon modern energy use but rather transition away from fossil fuels to mitigate climate change.
Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, highlighted the recent fatalities caused by Hurricane Helene in October 2023, which scientists attribute to the worsening effects of climate change, as a stark reminder of the urgency of addressing the climate crisis.
Wright’s report represents a broader ideological divide in energy policy, one that aligns with Trump’s goal of bolstering U.S. energy independence by maximizing domestic oil and gas production while scaling back global climate agreements and environmental regulations. As the new administration moves forward, the conflict between fossil fuel advocacy and climate science will likely remain a central issue in shaping U.S. energy policy.