Two Views of Chris Wright

Two contrasting articles on Department of Energy nominee Chris Wright show progress towards a rational discussion of energy policy vis-a-vis whatever the left is calling its package deal of the phenomenon of climate change with its policy response of energy rationing these days.

In the first, we see the typical legacy media hysteria, starting from its panicked headline,"Trump's Pick for Energy Secretary Thinks Climate Change Is Good, Actually."

As you might predict, this heresy is quickly downplayed with a dose of conventional blue state wisdom, followed by a quick Nicene creed (or is it a Gish gallop?) of assertions of impending doom that we're all supposed to take for granted -- or at least find too exhausting to contest:

And contrary to Wright's claim about temperature-related deaths, the Environmental Protection Agency reported this year that "dramatic increases in heat-related deaths are closely associated with the occurrence of hot temperatures and heat waves."

There are plenty more catastrophic scenarios that we know stem from climate change -- circumstances that literally kill people and destroy properties and environments. Indeed, these are big threats to all generations that currently live on earth and any that wish to do so in the future.

Reputable scientists around the world have concluded that over several decades, an average global temperature increase above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees F) could produce "irreversible" changes with "dangerous impacts for humanity." But Wright wants us all to see climate change through rose-colored glasses. [links omitted]

By contrast, consider the tone of a piece in the right-leaning Washington Examiner, titled "Chris Wright Right-Sizes Climate Risk." Within is an admittedly sympathetic look at his views that, while cursory, at least gives the reader a chance to know what they are and whether they have support before beginning to making up his own mind:

Activists target Wright for some of his specific claims, including that climate change makes the planet greener, boosts agricultural productivity, and reduces the number of temperature-related deaths. Unfortunately for the activists, Wright is right on all counts. None of those claims are plausibly controversial. That data are replete on all these points.

With more carbon dioxide (otherwise known as plant food) in the atmosphere, it is easier for plants to grow, and the Earth is getting greener as a result. These new plants do not consume enough carbon in the atmosphere to reverse or stop climate change, but Wright did not say that, only that they have a beneficial and mitigating effect.

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures in many regions mean farmers in many parts of the world produce more food in longer growing seasons. Warmer temperatures change what crops are most profitable for farmers in some areas, but that is not a crisis that demands a halt to economic growth.

Two things immediately leap out at me:

First, the positive. I thank energy expert Alex Epstein (foremost among others, like Mike Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg) for his tireless work in reframing and improving the debate about fossil fuels. If I recall correctly, he was the first or among the first to remind us that carbon dioxide is plant food en route to making this discussion a weighing of all evidence, pro and con regarding fossil fuels, rather than scare-mongering based on myopic, context-free alarm about carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

Second, the negative: While I am grateful that Donald Trump is listening to rational voices on energy, I am disappointed and alarmed about his promotion of such dishonest catastrophist ignoramuses in other fields as RFK, Jr., whose ideas on vaccines and food safety would severely set back public health and agriculture if put into practice.

The bad policies of an RFK, Jr. could badly offset any improvements to our well-being those of a Chris Wright could bring. Worse, the public could being to associate the nutty conspiracy mongering of the former with the sound reasoning of the latter, scuppering an improved energy policy on top of damaging other sectors of the economy.

Good on Trump for nominating Chris Wright, but he may have already kneecapped him more effectively than the left ever could have on its own.

-- CAV