SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
renewable energy
No Chris Wright, Destroying the Planet Won’t Solve Energy Poverty
Trump’s new energy secretary would like you to believe that “Zero Energy Poverty” and Net Zero emissions by 2050 are incompatible goals, but this could not be further from the truth.
Feb 06, 2025
Chris Wright, who was recently confirmed as the new secretary of energy, has been famous for years as one of the more unapologetic proponents of fossil fuels. In 1992, Wright founded Pinnacle Technologies, an early leader in the hydraulic fracking business, and later made his fortune as the CEO of Liberty Energy, one of the largest oilfield service firms in North America. In 2023, he made headlines for a series of inflammatory statements disputing the science of climate change.
Now Wright has taken a different tack on climate—less outrageous, but no less dangerous. At his Senate confirmation hearing last week, Wright claimed that he didn’t deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change; he only denied that climate change warranted any reductions in fossil fuel production. To make his case, Wright spoke in abstractions about “tradeoffs” and “complicated dialogue.”
Then came the doozy: Poor countries like Kenya suffered from sparse access to propane fuel, Wright said, and only fracking could deliver the low prices to make up for those shortfalls.
Wright claims to be working on behalf of the global poor, but if he were, he might heed their repeated calls for emission reductions in the United States and other wealthy countries.
Wright has been quietly developing this specious argument for years: that addressing energy poverty, especially in the Global South, requires untrammeled fossil fuel production, no matter the damage to the planet. In Liberty Energy’s 2024 annual report, Bettering Human Lives, Wright laid out his case for hydrocarbon extraction. “Only a billion people today enjoy the full benefits of a highly energized lifestyle,” Wright wrote, while “7 billion striv[e] to achieve the lifestyles of the more fortunate 1 billion.” Without access to reliable natural gas, “over 2 billion people still cook their daily meals and heat their homes with traditional fuels, [including] wood, dung, agricultural waste, or charcoal,” putting them at risk of acute respiratory disease from air pollution. The only remedy, according to Wright, is more fossil fuels like gas.
This weaponization of global energy poverty is so insidious because it takes a legitimate issue—inadequate access to reliable energy for billions of people around the world—and turns it into a neat talking point for the destruction of the planet. Energy insecurity is a real challenge for the Global South, with over 3 billion people estimated to suffer from energy poverty of some kind. But so is climate change, which the World Bank projects will push up to 135 million people into poverty by 2030, and which is already fueling extreme weather, conflict, and migration, from Micronesia to the Sahel.
Wright would like you to believe that “Zero Energy Poverty” and Net Zero emissions by 2050 are incompatible goals. According to Wright, “solar, wind, and batteries… will not, and cannot replace most of the energy services and raw materials provided by hydrocarbons.”
But this could not be further from the truth.
In a 2021 report, the Rockefeller Foundation report found that renewable energy could end energy poverty worldwide at a cost of just $130 billion a year, less than a sixth of what the United States currently spends on defense each year. Moreover, the report found that such a transformation would create 25 million jobs across Africa and Asia, more than 30 times the number of jobs created by a comparable investment in fossil fuels.
Wright’s case for hydrocarbons is based on a bad faith conflation of existing realities with possible futures. In Bettering Human Lives, Wright claims that electricity currently “delivers only 20% of total primary energy consumption” in order to challenge clean energy’s viability as a substitute for hydrocarbons. But as Wright himself knows, a central feature of the green transition will be the electrification of everything, from transportation to home heating to heavy industry. Present shares of energy usage for electricity do not provide an accurate picture of future consumption patterns .
In the case of the Global South, where energy poverty is most acute, the key will be the implementation and scaling of distributed renewable energy (DRE) systems. Unlike traditional grids, which often carry power over vast distances, DREs generate electricity from clean energy sources close to home. With the cost of batteries and solar PV both falling over 90% in the past decade, these systems are more affordable than ever. The Roosevelt Foundation sees DREs driving the clean energy transition across Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with mini-grids providing power for a dizzying array of technologies: “solar lanterns, ice-making factories used by fishing communities, milk chillers and irrigation pumps for farmers, refrigerators and life-saving medical equipment in clinics and hospitals, and more.”
Some elements of the climate movement have pushed a degrowth agenda that fails to reckon with the energy needs of many countries in the Global South. Calls for developing nations to abruptly cut off coal consumption, for example, ring hollow if they are not accompanied by meaningful assistance to pay for more expensive alternatives. But for the most part, the climate movement has recognized the inequities in historical development and emissions patterns, and placed the burden squarely on the Global North to drive the decarbonization process.
Wright claims to be working on behalf of the global poor, but if he were, he might heed their repeated calls for emission reductions in the United States and other wealthy countries. For years now, developing countries have been asking the nations most responsible for the climate crisis to decarbonize fastest, in order to buy time for poorer countries to catch up. They have also called for additional climate finance to assist with mitigation and adaptation efforts. At COP29 in November, rich countries pledged $300 billion a year in climate finance by 2035, but research suggests developing nations need closer to $1 trillion a year to protect their most vulnerable populations. If Wright were sincere in his concern for the plight of the global energy poor, he would support these initiatives.
Of course, he will do no such thing. Wright’s patron in the White House has already made the new administration’s policy clear. On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accords—and froze all foreign aid for 100 days. Now Trump appears to have shuttered USAID entirely. To those observing from abroad, Wright’s bad faith appeals to global poverty must appear as one more indignity from an administration inclined to offer little else.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alaska's North Slope Gasline Is a Cautionary Tale for Fossil Fuel Boosters Like Trump
The allure of quick profits from resource extraction often comes at the expense of long-term sustainability, not just for the environment but for taxpayers too.
Jan 30, 2025
Alaska's vast wilderness and abundant natural resources have long been a source of pride and a cornerstone of its economy, supporting sustainable industries like fishing and tourism and resource development like logging, mining, and drilling. With large swaths of open lands and waters, spectacular views, abundant wildlife, and unique geological elements like volcanos and glaciers, Alaska holds an almost mythical allure for Americans. There is a perception of endless opportunity, but these riches also come with responsibility—both for Alaskans and for the rest of the nation.
Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order titled "Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential," aiming to boost oil and gas drilling, mining, and logging in the state by rolling back numerous protective actions implemented by the Biden administration. While this move has been met with enthusiasm by some state leaders, others urge caution considering the environmental and fiscal responsibilities that would ensue if its intentions were realized.
Alaska is unlike any other state when it comes to natural resources. About 61% of Alaska's land is owned by the federal government, meaning what happens in Alaska is not only a local matter, it is also a national one. The executive order impacts public lands that belong to all Americans and some that are sacred to Indigenous peoples. Protecting Alaska's wild lands and resources isn't just Alaska's responsibility; it's a shared duty for all of us.
President Trump's executive orders may promise economic growth, but they fail to account for the real costs of overextending our natural and financial resources.
And yet the push to exploit these lands often rests on flimsy economic premises that fail to stand the test of time. Take the North Slope Gasline; For 15 years, the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) has promoted this project as a game-changer, spending nearly half a billion dollars of public money. Despite this significant public investment, no tangible progress has been made. A new report, Alaska's Pipe Dream: The Economic Folly of the North Slope Gasline, released by a coalition of groups, reveals what many already suspected: AGDC continues to spend millions on a gasline that's no closer to fruition than when it was first proposed in 2008.
The numbers are grim. The latest version of the proposed 800-mile gasline for LNG export is projected to cost a staggering $44 billion, while global market trends are rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources. Meanwhile, Alaska continues to write checks—nearly $500 million so far—hoping for a miracle that seems increasingly unlikely.
Imagine what could have been done with that money: better schools, improved healthcare, resilient infrastructure, or renewable energy investments that would genuinely prepare Alaska for the future. Instead, the state continues to sink public dollars into a project that doesn't pencil out, hoping it will magically deliver economic salvation.
In addition to being an economic bust, the gasline would exacerbate global warming, locking in extensive fossil fuel use for decades into the future. With its effects on warming 80 times greater than carbon dioxide on a short-term basis, addressing methane emissions is crucial in efforts to combat climate change and mitigate its impacts.
This is a cautionary tale for all Americans. The allure of quick profits from resource extraction often comes at the expense of long-term sustainability, not just for the environment but for taxpayers too. President Trump's executive orders may promise economic growth, but they fail to account for the real costs of overextending our natural and financial resources.
Alaska can't afford to be reckless with its land, money, or reputation. Whether it's the AGDC's pipe dream or new drilling and mining projects, we need to ask tougher questions about who would benefit and at what cost. Rushing into poorly planned developments risks leaving future generations to clean up the mess—financially and environmentally.
For those who dream of traveling to Alaska to view bears, moose, caribou, eagles, whales, and sea otters in their natural habitats, this matters. For those who seek exceptional fishing, hiking, camping, kayaking, heli-skiing, and cultural experiences, this matters.
For those who cherish the idea of public lands remaining pristine and accessible, this matters. Alaska's resources belong to all Americans, and so does the responsibility of ensuring they're managed wisely.
Leaders in Alaska—and across the country—should learn from the past and make decisions that reflect the realities of today's economy and tomorrow's environmental needs. As an initial step, efforts to build the North Slope gasline should be abandoned. It's time to pull the plug on this ill-conceived venture and look to renewables to meet our current and future energy needs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Holy Scandal-rooski! What You Won't Learn From State Farm's NFL Playoff Ads
The insurance giant—one of the nation's largest—does some bundling that hasn’t gotten the media attention it deserves, especially given the climate devastation in Los Angeles that the whole country has been watching on TV.
Jan 11, 2025
With NFL playoffs about to begin, State Farm Insurance will be constantly running commercials in which multimillionaire Kansas City Chiefs coach Andy Reid and his multimillionaire star player Patrick Mahomes belittle themselves by using their fame to personally cash in instead of using it like, say, Colin Kaepernick did, to address an issue of social significance. True to form, the NFL blackballed Kaepernick but at least he maintained his dignity.
In one commercial Reid acts goofy as he repeatedly says “Bundle-rooski” to describe Star Farm’s plan for bundling home and auto insurance. State Farm does some other bundling that hasn’t gotten the media attention it deserves, especially given the devastation in Los Angeles that the whole country has been watching on TV.
This other bundling couples State Farm’s refusal to insure tens of thousands of homes in fire prone areas with State Farm’s doubling down on investing in the fossil fuel industry. Not insuring properties that seem guaranteed to cost the company lots of money seems like good business sense. But it becomes shameful if coupled with also propping up the fossil fuel industry.
The Los Angeles Rams are hosting an NFL playoff game this weekend but because of the fossil fuel driven wildfires the game has been moved from LA to Arizona and, of all places, State Farm Stadium.
The fires in LA are called natural disasters but that’s not an apt description by itself. We are all witnessing the increasing number and magnitude of droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms that climate scientists have been warning us about for decades. Much of the discussion now is about how we need to adapt to the new climate reality, which is true. But the first rule for getting out of a hole is to stop digging and the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.
We need to quickly and greatly cut back on our burning of fossil fuels. State Farm needs to stop investing in fossil fuels before much more of the country becomes uninsurable.
The country said goodbye this week to Jimmy Carter, a most decent man who tried to set us on a path to renewable energy almost 50 years ago. Now we’re about to reinstall his direct opposite. We must resist. We must stand with each other and for the common good.
The Los Angeles Rams are hosting an NFL playoff game this weekend but because of the fossil fuel driven wildfires the game has been moved from LA to Arizona and, of all places, State Farm Stadium. If you watch be on the lookout for the “Bundlerooski” commercials, then spare a thought for Colin Kaepernick, Jimmy Carter, all the uninsured people in LA who lost everything…and State Farm’s scandalrooski.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular