Trump’s Energy Pick and the Fight Against Climate Action

Chris Wright, the new Secretary of Energy, is well known for Climate Action supporting fossil fuels. In 1992, he started Pinnacle Technologies, a company that helped develop hydraulic fracking. Later, he became the CEO of Liberty Energy, a big oil and gas service company in North America.

In 2023, Wright made headlines for saying controversial things about climate change, questioning the science behind it.At his Senate confirmation hearing, Wright changed his stance a little. He no longer denies that humans cause climate change, but he argued that it shouldn’t lead to less fossil fuel production.

He said things in vague terms like “trade-offs” and “complicated dialogue.” One of his key points was that countries like Kenya lack propane, and only fracking can provide cheap energy to fix this problem.

Wright has been making this argument for years: that to solve energy poverty in poorer countries, we need to keep using fossil fuels, no matter the environmental damage.

In Liberty Energy’s 2024 annual report, Wright argued that while a billion people enjoy modern energy, over seven billion are trying to live like them. More than two billion people still use traditional fuels like wood and charcoal for cooking and heating, which harms their health. Wright says the only solution is more natural gas and fossil fuels.

This argument is harmful because it uses the real issue of Climate Action energy poverty to justify hurting the planet. Around three billion people suffer from energy poverty, but climate change is also a growing problem. The World Bank says climate change could push 135 million people into poverty by 2030, causing extreme weather, conflict, and migration.

Wright says solving energy poverty and reaching Net Zero emissions by 2050 are not possible together. He believes renewable energy like solar and wind can’t replace fossil fuels. But this is not true.

A 2021 report from the Rockefeller Foundation found that renewable energy could end energy poverty worldwide for only $130 billion a year, less than a sixth of what the U.S. spends on defense. The report also said this transition could create 25 million jobs in Africa and Asia, far more than a similar investment in fossil fuels.

Wright’s argument mixes current energy realities with future possibilities. He says electricity only makes up 20% of total energy use, trying to show that renewables can’t replace fossil fuels. But as energy use shifts to electric power for things like transportation and home heating, the share of electricity will increase.

For poorer countries, the solution is using distributed renewable energy (DRE) systems. These systems produce electricity locally from clean energy, like solar power.

The cost of solar panels and batteries has dropped by over 90% in the past decade, making these systems cheaper and more accessible. Solar-powered mini-grids are already helping communities in Africa and Asia, providing power for homes, businesses, and important services like hospitals.

While some climate activists have suggested a “de-growth” agenda, which doesn’t consider the energy needs of poorer countries, most understand that rich countries have caused most of the climate problems. They believe wealthy nations should reduce emissions first, as they are responsible for most of the pollution.

Wright says he is helping the global poor, but if he truly Climate Action cared, he would support efforts to reduce emissions in the U.S. and other rich countries. Poor countries have long asked wealthier nations to cut emissions faster and provide more climate finance to help them adapt to climate change.

Rich countries promised to give $300 billion annually by 2035 for climate finance, but research shows poor countries need close to $1 trillion a year.

If Wright really cared about energy poverty, he would support these efforts.However, given his ties to the Trump administration, which pulled out of the Paris Agreement and cut foreign aid, it’s unlikely Wright will support these actions. His focus on fossil fuels and energy extraction instead of climate action shows that his priorities are different. For many, his attempt to use energy poverty for political gain only makes things worse.

Conclusion :
Trump’s energy pick represents a clear stance against meaningful climate action, prioritizing fossil fuel interests over global sustainability and economic justice. By opposing policies that address climate change, this decision not only accelerates environmental degradation but also deepens global poverty, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. As the world grapples with the urgent need for clean energy transitions, leadership that prioritizes profit over people threatens progress toward a more just and sustainable future. The fight for climate action is not just about the environment—it’s about equity, survival, and the well-being of future generations.