One of President Trump's better cabinet choices was Chris Wright as Secretary of Energy. While I'd rather see his primary purpose being to shut down the extra-constitutional Department of Energy, well, politics is the art of the possible, and it looks like that's not in the cards right now. But if we are to have a national energy policy and a department to oversee and implement it, this is the right man for the job.
What's more, he's not afraid to take his arguments into unfriendly territory. The Economist is a left-of-center publication, and while it's not completely leftist - it's not Mother Jones or The Nation, after all - their articles are usually pretty friendly to the climate-change agenda. But Secretary Wright, on Monday, has an opinion piece in The Economist that's worth reading.
As you might expect, I have some comments as well.
Nearly every aspect of modern life depends upon energy. It fuels opportunity, lifts people out of poverty and saves lives. That is why, as a lifelong energy entrepreneur and as US Secretary of Energy, I am honoured to advance President Donald Trump’s policy of bettering lives through unleashing a golden age of energy dominance both at home and around the world.
Over the past two centuries, two forces dramatically transformed the human condition: the rise of bottom-up social organisation—human liberty—and the explosion in the supply of affordable energy. The result has been a doubling in life expectancy. In the same period, extreme poverty has plummeted from affecting 90% of the world’s population to under 10%. Energy and human liberty matter.
Here, Secretary Wright channels something I've been saying for years, but it's not just energy that has done all this; it's increased energy density. Every major human advance has been driven by an increase in energy density of the primary fuel used by society. In a few thousand years, we've gone from burning wood and bone to charcoal, then to coal, oil, natural gas, and now nuclear power. That's remarkable - and that's what's driving our modern, technological lifestyle.
Reliable energy, yes, is critical. So is taking advantage of energy density. Both of these rule out the primary "green" sources championed by the left, solar and wind power.
Secretary Wright continues:
In the name of a single risk - climate change - the Biden administration launched a regulatory assault aimed at eliminating hydrocarbons in favour of so-called renewables. The results were predictable.
By targeting our most reliable fuels, the previous administration restricted energy production and blocked critical-infrastructure projects like natural-gas pipelines. This resulted in higher energy prices and inflation, driving up costs for everything from gasoline to groceries. It weakened the resilience of the electric grid. It also made American manufacturing more expensive and uncertain, risking an exodus of businesses—meaning lost jobs and a shrinking tax base.
Was this damage at least offset by progress with Joe Biden’s promise to green the economy? In short, no. Hydrocarbons made up 82% of American primary energy consumption in 2024, nearly the same as in 2019. Hydrocarbons are proving extremely difficult to replace.
And here's where we get into tradeoffs, which is something a publication called "The Economist" should understand.
When I was taking my MBA courses some years ago, I took two semesters each of micro- and macro-economics, all from the same instructor, a guy who had worked in the private sector for years, who had started, run, and sold successful businesses. I learned a lot, and one thing this instructor said stuck in my mind: "A politician will ask you what you want. An economist will ask you what you want more." I think he was quoting Dr. Thomas Sowell, but I heard that first from him.
It's all about tradeoffs. That's the choice we face here, today, now. Not just in the United States, but globally. We can have either prosperity, technology, all the trappings of our modern lifestyle, or we can have "green" energy. We can't have both.
Secretary Wright concludes:
The world stands at an energy crossroads and it is time to choose. Do we want an energy policy of exclusion and scarcity that shackles humanity and limits economic potential? Or do we want a policy of inclusion and abundance, bursting all limits to growth and opportunity?
America has made its choice in favour of more energy, more manufacturing and more economic activity. We invite others to do the same.
We've chosen in favor of energy and prosperity. In this, Secretary Wright is correct.
See Also: CBS Boston Is Just Blowing Smoke on Extreme Temps
A Young Meteorologist Questioned Climate Change. The Scolds Tried to Silence Him.
But here's the thing: All this is as fragile as spun sugar. The next major election cycle, 2026, could knock it all into the dustbin.
There will be a lot of issues on the table in these upcoming midterms, from the Second Amendment to drag queen story hour to the Deep State. But it's hard to think of anything more important than energy policy. Energy, affordable, reliable energy from high-density sources like natural gas and (much more so) nuclear power, is critical to our way of life. Energy is at the heart of everything we do, everything we make, and everything we consume. Rising energy costs, as we learned so painfully during the Biden/Autopen administration, raise the cost of everything else - everything else.
Secretary Wright has produced a great piece here, and it's worth reading in its entirety. But bear in mind, while the what is important in our nation's energy policies, it's the why that is absolutely critical. The left's climate-scoldery and "green" energy horse squeeze would send many of us back to the mid-19th century. We can't allow that to happen. It's as simple as that.
