Corporate Press Treatment of Chris Wright's Climate Change Perspective is a Key Example of Why Trust in Media is Declining
Journalists wondering why people are becoming ever more distrustful of their work and profession in general need to look in the mirror and reflect. Their “coverage” of the appointment of Chris Wright, Trump's DOE Secretary Nominee is a key example.
Much of the coverage stems around a video Mr. Wright posted in both Youtube and LinkedIn. According to Wright in an interview, Youtube's censors removed the video from their platform due to containing "climate change misinformation."
A few examples of Corporate Media malfeasance.
(ABC News)
(ABC News Good Morning America)
(Times of Isreal)
“'There is no such thing as clean energy or dirty energy,' he said in a 2023 LinkedIn video post. 'All energy sources have impacts on the world. ... credible, honest dialogue is simply lacking in today’s discourse.'"
"President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Energy is fossil fuel executive Chris Wright — who has misleadingly claimed on LinkedIn that 'there is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either.'"
(DeSmog)
To the credit of DeSmog, they actually posted the link to Wright's Youtube video, which few other outlets have done.
Wright is no stranger to Corporate Press malfeasance.
Never Stop Exploiting?
The cause of the disconnection is how most people think of themselves in these outdoor spaces, what they’re doing, what they believe being in these places does for them, and how much better these pla…
Dr.
, who is no stranger to smears over his views on climate change, covered more examples and went into a deep debunking of corporate press claims about Wright’s claims in his videos including tackling what the actual scientists say and scientific evidence suggest about the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters due to climate change.Pielke Jr. cuts to the chase, “The irony here is that Wright’s views on energy and climate, which he has expressed often and in detail, are largely consistent with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The views of his critics? Not so much.”
Wright’s infamous video however remains on LinkedIn and below is a transcript of the entire video. Anybody with a few minutes to give can see that each and every single one of these Corporate Press takes are misleading.
Are there any honest journalists out there anymore who will either retract their misleading statements or provide a “fact check” type correction of their own work?
Or will they continue to simmer in their echo chambers?
There is no climate crisis, and we're not in the midst of an energy transition either. Humans, in all complex life on Earth is simply impossible without carbon dioxide. Hence, the term carbon pollution is outrageous. Carbon dioxide does indeed absorb infrared radiation, contributing to warming. But calling carbon dioxide pollution is like calling out water and oxygen, the other two irreplaceable molecules for life on Earth.
There is no such thing as clean energy or dirty energy. All energy sources have impacts on the world, both positive and negative. Energy enables all human activity and is simply too important to cheapen the dialog by using these five deceptive, alarmist marketing terms.
We can do better than that. Credible, Honest dialog is sadly lacking in today's discourse these five terms, climate crisis, energy transition, carbon pollution, clean energy and dirty energy are not only deceptive, they are in fact destructive.
Deceptions destructive because they drive centrist politicians and regulators to oppose life critical infrastructure, like building pipelines and natural gas export terminals, they cause huge anxiety in kids, squelching the optimism that is so critical to life success, and they deflect attention away from critical, solvable problems that currently lead to 10 million premature deaths each year, language matters.
Let me cover each one of these destructive deceptions briefly.
Climate crisis. The Globe is slowly warming and sea levels are gradually rising, and had been for about 150 years, the second half of this time period since the end of World War Two, human burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO two concentration by about 50% which amplifies the warming and sea level rise that began in the late 1800s as the Little Ice Age ended. Since the end of World War Two, global human life expectancy, wealth, health and opportunity have surged like never before. Hence, any negative impacts from climate change were clearly overwhelmed by the benefits of increasing energy consumption.
What about extreme weather? You ask, we have seen no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornados, droughts or floods, despite endless fear mongering of the media, politicians and activists. This is not my opinion. This is the facts as contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. Further deaths from extreme weather have been plummeting for a century, from nearly 500,000 annual deaths in the 1920s down to an average of just over 10,000 annual deaths today. This is the cause for celebration, not a crisis. Let's make sure this trend continues.
The only thing resembling a crisis with respect to climate change is the regressive opportunity squelching policies justified in the name of climate change. These policies have driven up energy prices, destabilized electrical grids and displaced high paying energy intensive jobs to other countries and states without these perverse energy policies, no, these policies have not meaningfully reduced global greenhouse gas emissions. Simply moving emissions or jobs from the US or UK to China or Vietnam is not a reduction in emissions.
Energy Transition is another term that has been used to justify policies that deploy large government subsidies and mandates to enrich well off and connected while impoverishing everyone else. Yes, I am one of those needlessly enriched by these destructive policies as increasing barriers to oil and gas production have predictably driven up prices and delivered record profitability in the oil and gas industry. But haven't these trillions of dollars of subsidies over 20 or 30 years driven at least the start of a real energy transition? In short, no will demand for oil, natural gas and coal hit all time records. Last year, the total percent of global energy supplied from fossil fuels has declined, but only from the mid 80% 30 years ago to the low 80s percentage. Today. At that rate, we have another six or 700 years left to finish the.
Transition, that glacial rate of change does not qualify as a transition. Wind and Solar today provide only about 3% of global primary energy, and that is only the low hanging fruit in the electricity sector in the wealthy nations, this took trillions of dollars of subsidies and countless mandates. But those were not the only costs we now have to suffer with more expensive electricity and less reliable service. See Europe and California as exhibits a and b, and this was the easy 3% the low hanging fruit. Imagine the impacts of changing the harder the remaining 80 plus percent of global energy supply. Truth be told, we don't have viable technologies to replace our largest uses of hydrocarbon energy, which is in both the manufacturing sectors and the transportation sector. Manufacturing requires high temperature process heat to fabricate materials and everything else we make that high temperature process heat only comes from hydrocarbons in the transportation sector, truck, ship and air transport require extremely high energy density today only possible from hydrocarbons.
The truth is, there is no energy transition happening right now, no matter how much money, how many climate policies, activism or hot air are thrown at the problem. Energy is hard when political posturing collides with physics, physics wins every time. Progress will only come from honest, sober thinking and long term time horizons. Not much of that is visible today.
Carbon pollution is the most shameful marketing term that I've ever heard. I mentioned that atmospheric CO two concentration has gone up by about 50% since pre industrial times. If, instead of rising by 50% what would have happened if it fell by 50% photosynthesis would have stopped as atmospheric CO two dropped below the threshold required 150 parts per million for photosynthesis. This would prevent plants from growing or even surviving all animals, including humans, would soon die of starvation. One could rightfully call that a crisis, even a climate crisis, pollution or pollutants are substances that harm human health, like mercury, lead or smog. We know what these are, and that they're harmful, and that above certain thresholds, they're deadly.
The Clean Air Act passed in 1970 named the six most harmful pollutants to human health, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, very different from carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and ground level ozone, fortunately, sensible regulation of these pollutants, combined with innovation, has driven down annual emissions by 86% from 1970 to today. Wealthy countries are dealing with pollution. Low and middle income countries still have lots of room for improvement. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a greenhouse gas. Confusing these two is frightening kids and deflecting much needed attention from the huge pollution problems that still kill millions of people every year, mostly in lower income countries, from China to India, to Africa, just indoor air pollution arising from burning wood or dung for cooking at home, heating causes over 3 million needless deaths each year. According to the World Health Organization, the solution is simple, clean cooking fuels in the form of a cook stove and refillable propane canisters.
Over a billion people have made this simple transition, but 1/3 of humanity, two and a half billion people, still lack access to clean cooking fuel. Clean Energy and dirty energy are two other Fact Free, shameless marketing labels. One need not visit the horrific cobalt and copper mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or the slave labor staffed coal powered polysilicon fabrication facilities in Xinjiang, China, or the toxic rare earth metals processing ponds in China to become shorn of the illusion that solar and wind energy are lily white clean, there are no such things.
Wind and solar energy require roughly 10 times as much energy intensive materials like cement, steel, polysilicon, etc, per unit of energy produced compared to oil and. Gas. Land uses is even worse. Wind and Solar require 100 times as much land for equivalent energy production as oil and gas. It would be hard to call wind or solar clean or low environmental impact with a straight face.
Energy production is large scale, highly physical endeavor, and it always and everywhere brings sizable impact. When people call solar or wind clean, they are either naive, or they are instead referring to reduced greenhouse gas emissions versus fossil fuels. Wind and Solar do indeed deliver reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but certainly not zero greenhouse gas emissions, as typically claimed. Wind and solar farm construction requires copious amounts of energy, and specifically energy from fossil fuels and raw materials from fossil fuels too. Wind turbines are highly visible embodiments of hydrocarbons, the huge steel reinforced concrete bases are made from coal and intense amounts of natural gas, as are the giant steel towers. While fabricating the fiberglass blades requires high process, heat only possible from hydrocarbons and the giant plastic resin blades themselves, literally are hydrocarbons. Solar Farm fabrication is even more energy intensive than wind farms.
Let's just be honest, all energy production brings trade offs. The question is, which package of trade offs. Do you prefer the high energy density, meaning lots of energy from a relatively small amount of land from oil and gas has allowed wealthy countries to reclaim so much land for forests and wilderness that previously supplied wood for burning or that was required for farmland with less efficient agricultural practices without hydrocarbon fertilizers and mechanized farming is returning so much land in nature dirty? Of course, not.
The Energy and Climate dialog is fraught with so many challenges. Let's not compound the problem by using destructively deceptive terms like climate crisis, energy transition, carbon pollution, clean energy and dirty energy, these terms are nonsense. Let's just be honest.
Good reporting! I am sensing a widening crack in the armor of the "climate change" narrative. Common Sense Analysis is becoming relevant to the CO2 debate. We are almost at the point where "everyone knows" that the climate emergency is a scam. But most people who know this don't yet know that practically everyone else knows it, too. Maybe Chris Wright will be the child who says, "The Emperor has no clothes on!" And that might be the point at which everyone knows that everyone else knows that they have been scammed. That will be when the sentiment will change quickly and radically. I am rooting for Chris Wright, big time.
A fabulous job outlining a very important/difficult narrative. As for MSM they are still somewhat relevant because many people watch them on the morning or evening “newscasts”. But with podcasts and so many very well informed writers on Substack the truth is slowly becoming known by more and more people. It’s only baby steps but that seems to be very effective at getting people to listen and educate themselves. Please keep up your excellent work and effort! 🗽🧹👊🇺🇸