Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

A full-throated endorsement of the Secretary of Energy nominee Chris Wright.

Published

11 months ago

6 minute read

In Praise of Chris Wright

Like others, we have watched with curiosity as President-elect Donald Trump has rolled out his nominees for the various leadership positions of his administration. Whatever your views on any particular candidate, an undeniable pattern has emerged. First, Trump is selecting people who strongly support the specific campaign promises on which he ran, and those chosen are vowing to implement them to the letter. Second, lack of prior government experience seems to be an attribute rather than a detriment. Finally, the helminthoid establishment in Washington appears utterly ill-prepared for the deluge that is set to befall them, and Trump can expect significant bipartisan resistance as it dawns on lawmakers just how literal he was being on the campaign trail.

Of particular interest to this publication were the President-elect’s positions on energy. During his many rallies and speeches, candidate Trump vowed to be extremely supportive of domestic energy production, promising to unleash a wave of new investment in oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. He also committed to ending participation in various international climate change initiatives, much to the horror of those on the progressive environmental left. The shackles of federal regulation would soon be lifted, he said, and the US would come to dominate the global energy scene once again.

Against this backdrop, President-elect Trump electrified those in industry by nominating Chris Wright to the position of Secretary of Energy on Saturday. We can think of no better person for the job.

Consider his impressive biography. Wright earned an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and did graduate work in electrical engineering at both MIT and the University of California, Berkeley. He was a pioneer in the development of US shale gas resources, creating enormous value for shareholders over the past two decades. He has grown his current company, Liberty Energy, into one of the premier energy industry service providers in North America. Finally, he is an investor in and board member of Oklo Inc., a next-generation small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) company that has seen its market cap soar in 2024.

Things get even more promising when one studies Wright’s policy positions on energy. In early 2024, Liberty Energy published a 180-page policy document titled “Bettering Human Lives,” and we are hard-pressed to find anything to disagree with. The ten “Key Takeaways” from the summary page read as follows:

1. Energy is essential to life and the world needs more of it!

2. The modern world today is powered by and made of hydrocarbons.

3. Hydrocarbons are essential to improving the wealth, health, and life opportunities for the less energized seven billion people who aspire to be among the world’s lucky one billion.

4. Hydrocarbons supply more than 80% of global energy and thousands of critical materials and products.

5. The American Shale Revolution transformed energy markets, energy security, and geopolitics.

6. Global demand for oil, natural gas, and coal are all at record levels and rising – no energy transition has begun.

7. Modern alternatives, like solar and wind, provide only a part of electricity demand and do not replace the most critical uses of hydrocarbons. Energy-dense, reliable nuclear could be more impactful.

8. Making energy more expensive or unreliable compromises people, national security, and the environment.

9. Climate change is a global challenge but is far from the world’s greatest threat to human life.

10. Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero 2050.
Couldn’t have said it better ourselves | Liberty Energy

What’s not to like? The first nine of these takeaways are objectively true statements of fact, although few executives of publicly traded companies have had the courage to say them out loud. Wright has consistently done so throughout his career. The last is a brilliant reformulation of the climate change debate, as it forces a consideration of the impact on humans, not just the impact of humans.

Wright’s nomination is sure to trigger vigorous opposition by all the predictable people, and we hope he is well prepared to run the gauntlet of personal destruction that the left will undoubtedly use to derail him. Should he win approval in the Senate, Wright has the opportunity to be a historic and transformational figure. His talent, knowledge, leadership attributes, and track record of success make him more than qualified for the job. Count us among those excited at the prospect.

If you’re interested to hear from Wright himself, listen to this episode of Energy News Beat, featuring a discussion with Wright and yours truly, recorded in March of this year.

Thank you for reading. Please subscribe to access all articles and support our work.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Economy / 7 hours ago

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 11 hours ago

Canada Needs a Mandatory National Service

Alberta / 12 hours ago

B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way

Economy

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Published on October 25, 2025

By

From Michael Shellenberger

Image

Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid-19th Century, and thus none showing human-created emissions caused an acceleration in recent decades.
This does not mean that climate change isn’t happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human-caused climate change.
Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public.
In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world’s leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me.
For years, the world’s top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into how the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers, and the wider public for so long.
You might think this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real-world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention-grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has, since the 1990s, been the main justification for apocalyptic climate claims, and past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show that scientists were deliberately misleading.
The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.
Not only can I prove that the real-world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration, I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented their research, and how they did it, thanks to my on-the-record email conversation with Kopp of Rutgers….
Please subscribe now to support Public’s award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video!
Full version: x.com/shellenberger/

Continue Reading

Alberta

B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way

Published on October 25, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.”

In case you haven’t heard, the Alberta government plans to submit a proposal to the federal government to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast.

But B.C. Premier Eby dismissed the idea, calling it a project imported from U.S. politics and pursued “at the expense of British Columbia and Canada’s economy.” He’s simply wrong. A new pipeline wouldn’t come at the expense of B.C. or Canada’s economy—it would strengthen both. In fact, particularly during the age of Trump, provinces should seek greater cooperation and avoid erecting policy barriers that discourage private investment and restrict trade and market access.

The United States remains the main destination for Canada’s leading exports, oil and natural gas. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. In light of President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy and other goods, it’s long past time to diversify our trade and find new export markets.

Given that most of Canada’s oil and gas is landlocked in the Prairies, pipelines to coastal terminals are the only realistic way to reach overseas markets. After the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project in May 2024, which transports crude oil from Alberta to B.C. and opened access to Asian markets, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent. This new global reach strengthens Canada’s leverage in trade negotiations with Washington, as it enables Canada to sell its energy to markets beyond the U.S.

Yet trade is just one piece of the broader economic impact. In its first year of operation, the TMX expansion generated $13.6 billion in additional revenue for the economy, including $2.0 billion in extra tax revenues for the federal government. By 2043, TMX operations will contribute a projected $9.2 billion to Canada’s economic output, $3.7 billion in wages, and support the equivalent of more than 36,000 fulltime jobs. And B.C. stands to gain the most, with $4.3 billion added to its economic output, nearly $1 billion in wages, and close to 9,000 new jobs. With all due respect to Premier Eby, this is good news for B.C. workers and the provincial economy.

In contrast, cancelling pipelines has come at a real cost to B.C. and Canada’s economy. When the Trudeau government scrapped the already-approved Northern Gateway project, Canada lost an opportunity to increase the volume of oil transported from Alberta to B.C. and diversify its trading partners. Meanwhile, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, B.C. lost out on nearly 8,000 jobs a year (or 224,344 jobs in 29 years) and more than $11 billion in provincial revenues from 2019 to 2048 (inflation-adjusted).

Now, with the TMX set to reach full capacity by 2027/28, and Premier Eby opposing Alberta’s pipeline proposal, Canada may miss its chance to export more to global markets amid rising oil demand. And Canadians recognize this opportunity—a recent poll shows that a majority of Canadians (including 56 per cent of British Columbians) support a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.

But, as others have asked, if the economic case is so strong, why has no private company stepped up to build or finance a new pipeline?

Two words—bad policy.

At the federal level, Bill C-48 effectively bans large oil tankers from loading or unloading at ports along B.C.’s northern coast, undermining the case for any new private-sector pipeline. Meanwhile, Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” And the federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector will inevitably force a reduction in oil and gas production, again making energy projects including pipelines less attractive to investors.

Clearly, policymakers in Canada should help diversify trade, boost economic growth and promote widespread prosperity in B.C., Alberta and beyond. To achieve this goal, they should put politics aside, focus of the benefits to their constituents, and craft regulations that more thoughtfully balance environmental concerns with the need for investment and economic growth.

Continue Reading

Trending

X