SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
fracking
Trump and Wright Are Turning America Into a Gas Station Masquerading as a Nation
Much of what they’ve been doing—from cutting funding for the arts to cancelling major renewable projects—seems designed to insure that fracked gas will be our central legacy.
Sep 09, 2025
Way back in January of 2015, six months before Donald Trump began America’s escalator-like descent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona took to the floor of the Senate to describe Russia as “a gas station masquerading as a country.” He was responding to the invasion of Crimea, and demanding the US stand up to Moscow; within a few weeks others has shortened his bon mot to “gas station with nukes.” It hit at an essential truth: Russia, for all its size and might, hadn’t developed much of anything in recent decades; Vladimir Putin survived by pumping gas to the rest of the world, resting on the weapons his Soviet predecessors had bequeathed him.
Eight months into the second Trump administration, what are we? The president and his minions have been enriching themselves, and doing it by stripping the state that better women and men had built in the decades before. Our scientific and medical prowess? Our great universities? Our shared culture, from public broadcasting to the National Endowment for the Arts to the Kennedy Center? Even our history, as the Smithsonian comes under attack. But we still have a lot of fracked gas, dammit! And—viewed one way—much of what they’ve been doing seems designed to insure that fracked gas will be our central legacy.
On the list of odd things the administration has done, shutting down work on offshore wind projects off the New England coast may be among the oddest. These projects are enormous investments, have been in the works for many years, and have acquired (with painful slowness) the necessary permits. Now, just as they’re coming online, they’re being shut down. I can’t really think of any equivalent—it’s as if, in the 19th century we built the Erie Canal and then decided, forget it, let’s keep using wagons. It’s as if in the 20th century, we built the interstate highway system and then decided to simply seal off the exits and let it just lie there unused. What kind of logic turns a paid-for and productive asset into an aqueous Stonehenge?
This kind of logic: If those turbines start funneling electricity into New England, they won’t need to burn as much natural gas to produce electricity. They won’t need the new pipelines that Big Oil wants to build north. And who would that hurt? Well, Christopher Wright is Trump’s secretary of energy. He was formerly CEO of Liberty Energy, the nation’s second-largest fracking firm. Here’s how the Energy Department describes his background (after describing him as a “dedicated humanitarian”):
He founded Pinnacle Technologies and served as CEO from 1992 to 2006. Pinnacle created the hydraulic fracture mapping industry, and its innovations helped launch commercial shale gas production in the late 1990s. Chris was chairman of Stroud Energy, an early shale gas producer, before selling to Range Resources in 2006. Most recently, Chris served as chairman and CEO of Liberty Energy, where his team helped to expand the shale revolution to include oil as well as natural gas.
And here’s Christopher Wright, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations on the eve of a trip to Europe next week to “promote American gas.” According to him, the Paris climate accords are “silly” and “climate change, for impacting the quality of your life, is not incredibly important. In fact, if it wasn’t in the news, in the media, you wouldn’t know.”
I have my guesses how well this will go down with Wright’s European hosts—the continent has just endured its worst wildfire season since record-keeping began. Portugal, Spain, and Greece have been especially hard hit; France recorded its biggest wildfire since at least 1949, which shrouded much of the country in smoke. As one local mayor said, “Everything is burned. More than half or three-quarters of the village has burned down. It’s hellish, a lunar landscape.” Even that green and pleasant isle of England has had its worst fire season ever, which makes sense since it was the hottest summer in UK history.
But for the moment let’s forget about Europe, and indeed about climate change, and instead focus on East Coast electricity users, because they’ll be paying the highest price for Wright’s folly. Canary Media’s Jeff St. John, in an epic account last week, laid out the costs of shutting down a massive source of supply that regional energy planners had been counting on:
It would leave a gaping hole in New England’s energy mix, driving up the region’s already-high electricity prices and leaving its grid more vulnerable to collapse during winter storms. New England’s grid operator has already factored the 704-megawatt wind farm into its plans starting next year. Delaying delivery of that power “will increase risks to reliability,” ISO New England warned in a statement last week.
In fact, that warning from the ISO, or Independent System Operator, in New England is worth reading. It comes from a largely anonymous agency charged with keeping the region online:
“Unpredictable risks and threats to resources—regardless of technology—that have made significant capital investments, secured necessary permits, and are close to completion will stifle future investments, increase costs to consumers, and undermine the power grid’s reliability and the region’s economy now and in the future,” ISO New England said in the statement.
That’s not the language these guys usually use. Abe Silverman, a Johns Hopkins researcher, called it “unprecedented.” But then, so is taking a huge energy generator offline for no reason:
“We’re talking about a really significant hit to consumers, at a time we’re all hyper-concerned about inflation and energy prices generally,” Silverman said. Losing Revolution Wind’s electricity could cost New England consumers about $500 million a year, he estimated, based on the value the project has secured in ISO New England’s forward capacity market and its potential to supplant costlier power plants used during grid emergencies.
And “we don’t need a bunch of fancy studies to tell us that these units are needed for reliability,” he said. New England has long struggled to meet electricity demand during winter cold snaps and summer heatwaves. When temperatures surpassed 100°F for several days in June, “they had every single generator on,” he said. “Here we have a unit that should be operating as of next summer that is now in doubt.”
But it’s during the winter months that the loss of Revolution Wind could be most keenly felt, said Susan Muller, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. That’s when the region’s limited supply of fossil gas is stretched even thinner, since the fuel is used both for building heating and power generation. ISO New England is banking on offshore wind—which blows most strongly in the winter—to meet energy needs as temperatures plummet.
As the Times reported, “Revolution Wind was expected to generate electricity for more than 350,000 homes at 9.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, a rate that would be locked in for 20 years and is cheaper than the average cost of electricity in New England, according to America’s Clean Power.” In fact, a new study released last week found that if Revolution Wind had been in operation last year, it would have saved consumers $400 million, lowering their energy prices 11% and “insulating ratepayers from expensive, volatile natural gas.” Given America’s insane levels of inequality, that might not mean much to “humanitarian” Wright: he sold his fracking stock for $53 million when he took the Energy Department job. But I live in New England—I know lots of people who have trouble paying their power bills.
There is no mystery here. Across the country, as Princeton’s Jesse Jenkins was the latest to point out, the old canard about renewable electricity being expensive is simply not true—many states with more wind have cheap power prices. It’s not less reliable; with new batteries just the opposite is true. In fact, in the heart of the shale fracking belt in Texas, the head of the state’s Energy Reliability Council said earlier this summer that its blackout risk had been greatly reduced. Read the numbers here to get a sense of how backwards Wright and Trump have it:
The addition of more than 9,600 megawatts of capacity to the state’s grid since last summer, coupled with conservative operations and reliable management, has produced this result, Vegas said at an ERCOT board of directors meeting this week.
“The state of the grid is strong, it is reliable—it is as reliable as it has ever been and it is as ready for the challenges of extreme weather,” Vegas said. “I feel confident that we are ready for this upcoming summer season.”
Of the new capacity added, 5,395 megawatts came from solar, 3,821 megawatts from energy storage and 253 megawatts from wind power. Kristi Hobbs, ERCOT’s vice president of system planning and weatherization, said the risk of emergency as the sun goes down and Texans continue to pump their air conditioners has been greatly reduced due to the large contributions from solar and battery storage.
“That does put us in a better position to get over those evening ramps as we go into late summer,” Hobbs said.
In the same time frame of the solar and storage additions, there’s been a net loss of natural gas capacity. Retirements, deactivations, and derates, or a loss of available capacity, of gas plants, resulted in a reduced capacity of 366 megawatts on the grid since last summer.
I am pretty sure that Christopher Wright knows all this. He tweeted out the other day that “wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside, and the wind is not blowing.” This is not a mistake, I think; it’s a lie. Surely he’s heard about batteries, and surely he knows that they’re now one of the biggest sources of nighttime supply in California because they’ve been soaking up sunshine all afternoon.
But Wright and Trump don’t care about consumers of electricity. They don’t care about the big companies building the wind farms that they’re driving close to bankruptcy (these, remember, are competitors with Big Oil). They don’t care about the thousands of jobs lost in the process. Here’s how the head of the Building Trades unions described the stop work order:
Let’s call the Department of the Interior’s stop-work order for Revolution Wind what it is: President Donald Trump just fired 1,000 of our members who had already labored to complete 80% of this major energy project. A “stop-work order” is the fancy bureaucratic term, but it means one thing: throwing skilled American workers off the job after they’ve spent a decade training, building, and delivering.
This project isn’t some pipe dream; it’s real steel in the water and $1.3 billion in investment already on the ground. And with the stroke of a pen late on a Friday, President Trump personally signed off on killing these jobs and creating chaos. He pulled the plug on an almost-finished project, taking jobs, paychecks, and food off the tables of working families in Connecticut and Rhode Island.
No, I think it’s pretty clear that Trump and Wright are engaged in an effort to turn America into a—well, a gas station masquerading as a nation. They’ve already coerced New York Gov. Kathy Hochul into potentially allowing a natural gas pipeline through the state in return for allowing work to continue on the Empire State’s offshore wind project. They’re now at work on Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, and she appears to be caving; in truth, she may not have much choice. If the federal government cuts off the biggest and cheapest source of energy supply, she still has to keep the lights on and furnaces running.
Exactly the same thing that’s happening with wind is happening with solar—a new report Sunday warns that that “these policies could cut 44 GW of US solar growth by 2030—an 18% decline. Compared with pre-HR1 forecasts, that’s a total loss of 55 GW, or 21% fewer solar projects by 2030”:
“Solar and storage are the backbone of America’s energy future, delivering the majority of new power to the grid at the lowest cost to families and businesses,” said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper. She added that the administration is “deliberately stifling investment, which is raising energy costs for families and businesses, and jeopardizing the reliability of our electric grid.”
And if New England’s wind farms make an easy target because these states voted against Trump, that’s not true of the solar damage: “This year, 77% of new solar capacity has been built in states Trump won. Eight of the top 10 states for new installations—Texas, Indiana, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, and Arkansas—all went red in 2024.”
This is an all-out effort to stifle competition with Big Oil. It could not be more cynical—it’s the Putin playbook, producing misery for normal people and big profits for politically connected oligarchs. That’s what “energy dominance” means. It won’t work in the rest of the world, I think—just at random, here’s a story about how battery storage is surging in Pakistan and another about the spread of solar to Brazil’s poor urban favelas and another about the island that Belgium is building to anchor its wind industry, and another about how even fast-growing India is now using less fossil fuel to generate electricity. Globally, solar construction surged 64% in the first half of the year.
So the world will continue on its rational course. But the US is now building solar at only about 8% of the pace of the Chinese. If this looting succeeds here at home, than in a decade foreign tourists who can still get a visa will arrive to gawk at the colonial Williamsburg of internal combustion, to see how primitive societies powered their lives. By then Trump will be gone, and Wright will still have his millions. For the rest of us, at least we will still have nuclear weapons to make us a “great nation,” just like Russia
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Chris Wright, Destroying the Planet Won’t Solve Energy Poverty
Trump’s new energy secretary would like you to believe that “Zero Energy Poverty” and Net Zero emissions by 2050 are incompatible goals, but this could not be further from the truth.
Feb 06, 2025
Chris Wright, who was recently confirmed as the new secretary of energy, has been famous for years as one of the more unapologetic proponents of fossil fuels. In 1992, Wright founded Pinnacle Technologies, an early leader in the hydraulic fracking business, and later made his fortune as the CEO of Liberty Energy, one of the largest oilfield service firms in North America. In 2023, he made headlines for a series of inflammatory statements disputing the science of climate change.
Now Wright has taken a different tack on climate—less outrageous, but no less dangerous. At his Senate confirmation hearing last week, Wright claimed that he didn’t deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change; he only denied that climate change warranted any reductions in fossil fuel production. To make his case, Wright spoke in abstractions about “tradeoffs” and “complicated dialogue.”
Then came the doozy: Poor countries like Kenya suffered from sparse access to propane fuel, Wright said, and only fracking could deliver the low prices to make up for those shortfalls.
Wright claims to be working on behalf of the global poor, but if he were, he might heed their repeated calls for emission reductions in the United States and other wealthy countries.
Wright has been quietly developing this specious argument for years: that addressing energy poverty, especially in the Global South, requires untrammeled fossil fuel production, no matter the damage to the planet. In Liberty Energy’s 2024 annual report, Bettering Human Lives, Wright laid out his case for hydrocarbon extraction. “Only a billion people today enjoy the full benefits of a highly energized lifestyle,” Wright wrote, while “7 billion striv[e] to achieve the lifestyles of the more fortunate 1 billion.” Without access to reliable natural gas, “over 2 billion people still cook their daily meals and heat their homes with traditional fuels, [including] wood, dung, agricultural waste, or charcoal,” putting them at risk of acute respiratory disease from air pollution. The only remedy, according to Wright, is more fossil fuels like gas.
This weaponization of global energy poverty is so insidious because it takes a legitimate issue—inadequate access to reliable energy for billions of people around the world—and turns it into a neat talking point for the destruction of the planet. Energy insecurity is a real challenge for the Global South, with over 3 billion people estimated to suffer from energy poverty of some kind. But so is climate change, which the World Bank projects will push up to 135 million people into poverty by 2030, and which is already fueling extreme weather, conflict, and migration, from Micronesia to the Sahel.
Wright would like you to believe that “Zero Energy Poverty” and Net Zero emissions by 2050 are incompatible goals. According to Wright, “solar, wind, and batteries… will not, and cannot replace most of the energy services and raw materials provided by hydrocarbons.”
But this could not be further from the truth.
In a 2021 report, the Rockefeller Foundation report found that renewable energy could end energy poverty worldwide at a cost of just $130 billion a year, less than a sixth of what the United States currently spends on defense each year. Moreover, the report found that such a transformation would create 25 million jobs across Africa and Asia, more than 30 times the number of jobs created by a comparable investment in fossil fuels.
Wright’s case for hydrocarbons is based on a bad faith conflation of existing realities with possible futures. In Bettering Human Lives, Wright claims that electricity currently “delivers only 20% of total primary energy consumption” in order to challenge clean energy’s viability as a substitute for hydrocarbons. But as Wright himself knows, a central feature of the green transition will be the electrification of everything, from transportation to home heating to heavy industry. Present shares of energy usage for electricity do not provide an accurate picture of future consumption patterns .
In the case of the Global South, where energy poverty is most acute, the key will be the implementation and scaling of distributed renewable energy (DRE) systems. Unlike traditional grids, which often carry power over vast distances, DREs generate electricity from clean energy sources close to home. With the cost of batteries and solar PV both falling over 90% in the past decade, these systems are more affordable than ever. The Roosevelt Foundation sees DREs driving the clean energy transition across Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with mini-grids providing power for a dizzying array of technologies: “solar lanterns, ice-making factories used by fishing communities, milk chillers and irrigation pumps for farmers, refrigerators and life-saving medical equipment in clinics and hospitals, and more.”
Some elements of the climate movement have pushed a degrowth agenda that fails to reckon with the energy needs of many countries in the Global South. Calls for developing nations to abruptly cut off coal consumption, for example, ring hollow if they are not accompanied by meaningful assistance to pay for more expensive alternatives. But for the most part, the climate movement has recognized the inequities in historical development and emissions patterns, and placed the burden squarely on the Global North to drive the decarbonization process.
Wright claims to be working on behalf of the global poor, but if he were, he might heed their repeated calls for emission reductions in the United States and other wealthy countries. For years now, developing countries have been asking the nations most responsible for the climate crisis to decarbonize fastest, in order to buy time for poorer countries to catch up. They have also called for additional climate finance to assist with mitigation and adaptation efforts. At COP29 in November, rich countries pledged $300 billion a year in climate finance by 2035, but research suggests developing nations need closer to $1 trillion a year to protect their most vulnerable populations. If Wright were sincere in his concern for the plight of the global energy poor, he would support these initiatives.
Of course, he will do no such thing. Wright’s patron in the White House has already made the new administration’s policy clear. On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accords—and froze all foreign aid for 100 days. Now Trump appears to have shuttered USAID entirely. To those observing from abroad, Wright’s bad faith appeals to global poverty must appear as one more indignity from an administration inclined to offer little else.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Expanding LNG Over Renewable Energy Is Economic and National Security Failure: Report
"When comparing natural gas and renewables for energy security, renewables generally offer greater long-term energy security due to their local availability, reduced dependence on imports, and lower vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions."
Jan 17, 2025
As Republican President-elect Donald Trump prepares to further accelerate already near-record liquefied natural gas exports after taking office next week, a report published Friday details how soaring U.S. foreign LNG sales are "causing price volatility and environmental and safety risks for American families in addition to granting geopolitical advantages to the Chinese government."
The report, Strategic Implications of U.S. LNG Exports, was published by the American Security Project, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, and offers a "comprehensive analysis of the impact of the natural gas export boom from the advent of fracking through the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and provides insight into how the tidal wave of U.S. exports in the global market is altering regional and domestic security environments."
According to a summary of the publication:
The United States is the world's leading producer of natural gas and largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Over the past decade, affordable U.S. LNG exports have facilitated a global shift from coal and mitigated the geopolitical risks of fossil fuel imports from Russia and the Middle East. Today, U.S. LNG plays a critical role in diversifying global energy supplies and reducing reliance on adversarial energy suppliers. However, rising global dependence on natural gas is creating new vulnerabilities, including pricing fluctuations, shipping route bottlenecks, and inherent health, safety, and environmental hazards. The U.S. also faces geopolitical challenges related to the LNG trade, including China's stockpiling and resale of cheap U.S. LNG exports to advance its renewable energy industry and expand its global influence.
"When comparing natural gas and renewables for energy security, renewables generally offer greater long-term energy security due to their local availability, reduced dependence on imports, and lower vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions," the report states.
American Security Project CEO Matthew Wallin said in a statement that "action needs to be taken to ensure Americans are insulated from global price shocks, the impacts of climate change, and new health and safety risks."
"Our country must also do more to protect its interests from geopolitical rivals like China that subsidize their growth and influence by reselling cheap U.S. LNG at higher spot prices," Wallin asserted. "U.S. LNG has often been depicted as a transition fuel, and our country must ensure that it continues working towards that transition to clean sources instead of becoming dependent on yet another vulnerable fuel source."
Critics have
warned that LNG actually hampers the transition to a green economy. LNG is mostly composed of methane, which has more than 80 times the planetary heating power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Despite President Joe Biden's 2024 pause on LNG export permit applications, his administration has presided over what climate campaigners have called a "staggering" LNG expansion, including Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and more than a dozen other projects. Last month, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledged that approving more LNG exports would raise domestic energy prices, increase pollution, and exacerbate the climate crisis.
In addition to promising to roll back Biden's recent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling across more than 625 million acres of U.S. coastal territory, Trump—who has nominated a bevy of fossil fuel proponents for his Cabinet—is expected to further increase LNG production and exports.
A separate report published Friday by Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen examined 14 proposed LNG export terminals that the Trump administration is expected to fast-track, creating 510 million metric tons of climate pollution–"equivalent to the annual emissions of 135 new coal plants."
While campaigning for president, Trump vowed to "frack, frack, frack; and drill, baby, drill." This, as fossil fuel interests poured $75 million into his campaign coffers, according to The New York Times.
"This research reveals the disturbing reality of an LNG export boom under a second Trump term," Friends of the Earth senior energy campaigner Raena Garcia said in a statement referring to her group's new report. "This reality will cement higher energy prices for Americans and push the world into even more devastating climate disasters. The incoming administration is poised to haphazardly greenlight LNG exports that are clearly intended to put profit over people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular