From the MANHATTAN CONTRIAN

Francis Menton

Over the past two weeks, President-elect Trump has engaged in rapid-fire announcements of his picks for the cabinet and other top positions. Among the announced selections are Trump’s nominees for the three top positions in climate and energy policy: EPA Administrator (Lee Zeldin), Secretary of Energy (Chris Wright), and Secretary of the Interior (Doug Burgum). In this post I will take a first look at these nominees.

Without doubt, these three Trump appointees will be an enormous improvement over the Biden administration functionaries they will replace (EPA Administrator Michael Regan, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland). The three outgoing Bidenauts are all committed fanatic climate warriors, fighting every day to restrict development and use of hydrocarbon fuels, and thus to make America weaker and Americans poorer. Having them in office has been like having the country’s energy policy under the control of a cabal of its worst enemies.

But is there anything about President-elect Trump’s nominees for these positions that we should be at least somewhat concerned about? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. The subject of my principal concern is the so-called “all of the above” approach to energy policy.

But first the good news. All of Zeldin, Wright and Burgum are on record as proponents of lifting restrictions on development and use of hydrocarbon fuels, getting the government out of the way, and of letting that sector of the economy flourish.

Of the three, Wright, the nominee for Energy Secretary, has been the most vocal and outspoken as a fossil fuels proponent. Wright’s current job is CEO of Liberty Energy, a major player in the business of “fracking” to develop oil and gas resources. A piece in Politico’s E&E News today calls Wright a “fossil fuel evangelist.” A prior piece from the same source a few days ago (November 18) has some choice quotes from Wright, including his saying that “there is no climate crisis” and that net-zero emissions goals “neither achievable nor humane.”

Burgum, the nominee for Interior Secretary, is the current governor of North Dakota, the third largest among oil-producing states. As governor, Burgum has presided over rapid and continuing development of the Bakken shale formation in that state. The Hill, in a piece on November 15, quotes Burgum making promises of “unleashing American energy dominance,” words that echo a frequent Trump refrain. At Interior, Burgum will have the authority to open up large tracts of federal lands that have been withheld from development under Biden.

Zeldin, the nominee for EPA Administrator, has less of a record on energy issues than the other two. His principal prior service consists of eight years in Congress, from January 2015 to January 2023, representing eastern Long Island. At the end of that time, he gave up his seat in Congress to run unsuccessfully for Governor of New York (however, losing by only about 6 points, 53-47, in this very blue state). Newsweek in a November 11 piece, notes that he is a “longtime opponent of climate regulation,” that he got very low scores from the League of Conservation Voters during his time in Congress, and that in his 2022 gubernatorial campaign he promised to lift New York’s ban on fracking that had been imposed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo.

So far, so good. However, all of these three nominees are tainted to greater or lesser degree by prior buy-in to the so-called “all of the above” energy policy, as well as to other schemes to fight the bogeyman of “carbon emissions.”

What’s wrong with the “all of the above” energy policy? This is the proposition that the government should promote all forms of energy development — not just fossil fuels, but also anything and everything else, from nuclear to hydro to geothermal to the “renewables” wind and solar. I had a post on this subject on November 2, just before the election. In that post I pointed out that while “all of the above” might sound obviously right as an energy policy, in practice there is a big problem:

In practice, “all of the above” is code for continuing and growing government subsidies to energy schemes that don’t work and that drive up consumer costs and impoverish the people. Under that banner, we’re growing huge corrupt industries of uneconomic energy producers dependent on the endless continuation and increase of destructive subsidies. Ending the subsidies could put these industries out of business overnight, so you should not be surprised that they are prepared to spend billions to buy politicians to keep the gravy flowing.

So where do Trump’s three nominees stand on this subject?

Start with Burgum. He became Governor of North Dakota in 2016. Even as North Dakota’s oil and gas resources have been rapidly developed during his tenure, the same has also been true for wind energy. From the EIA’s North Dakota energy profile:

Wind power generation more than doubled in the state from 2015 to 2023. In 2023, wind was the second-largest electricity generating source in North Dakota and provided nearly two-fifths of the state’s net generation. The state ranked sixth in the nation in the share of its electricity generated from wind energy.

The problem here is that wind energy requires massive government subsidies, and also drives up electricity prices because it is incapable of supplanting reliable generation.

Then there is this about Burgum from the piece in The Hill:

As governor of North Dakota, Burgum set a goal in 2021 for the state to reach net-zero emissions by 2030. . . . However, his plan to meet that target did not include a transition away from fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change. Instead, Burgum said he wanted the state to use carbon capture and storage technology, which can prevent planet-warming emissions from entering the atmosphere, to reduce or offset its emissions.

Burgum gives the impression of being a smart guy. He certainly should be smart enough to understand why carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unlikely ever to be economical. Well, at least the subsidizing of CCS will not be under his jurisdiction as Interior Secretary.

Zeldin’s record on climate and energy issues is also somewhat mixed. From the Newsweek piece linked above:

Zeldin has expressed mixed views on climate change and environmental policy throughout his political career. . . . [H]e has supported some renewable energy initiatives, like extending solar investment tax credits and researching offshore wind potential. . . .

Those “solar investment tax credits” are precisely kinds of things that make the “all of the above” energy policy a cancer on the economy. Again, I suppose that the good news is that handing out or re-authorizing these kinds of subsidies will not be in Zeldin’s authority as EPA Administrator.

The guy mainly in charge of handing out the big subsidies and research grants is going to be Wright at the Department of Energy. Of the three Trump appointees discussed here, Wright has the strongest record with respect to the “all of the above” diversion, and in particular has been a vocal opponent of wind and solar. The November 21 Politico E&E piece linked above quotes Wright as follows as to wind and solar:

[H]e argued the government had gone too far in its attempts to green the economy by subsidizing renewables. “What I think the government’s doing catastrophically wrong is the vast majority of their money and subsidies are not for research, not for making technologies better,” Wright continued. “They’re deploying politically popular, low-energy density, intermittent, unreliable energy sources that have just destabilized our electricity, made energy more expensive, don’t really have a prospect of being a meaningful solution in the future.”

But then there are all kinds of other energy schemes angling for government handouts under the “all of the above” rubric. Politico E&E quotes Wright (referring to a former DOE grant-making official named Julio Friedman):

“What Julio is doing in carbon sequestration, on next generation nuclear, on next generation geothermal technologies — that can play a meaningful role going forward,” Wright said.

There’s CCS again. Nobody has made it work, and probably nobody ever will be able to make it work economically, but it just keeps popping up again and again with its hands out for government subsidies.

How about this as an energy policy for the incoming administration: the government rescinds the restrictive regulations, ends the handouts, and just lets the private sector develop whatever energy source may be the most efficient or profitable.

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

The sums of money being demanded at the UN climate conference in Azerbaijan are staggering.

The UN estimates that the world currently spend $3 trillion per year on climate and wants to dedicate $3.5 trillion to energy transition per year by 2050.  This would skyrocket total annual global climate spending to $5 trillion.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

They are pushing for something they call the “new collective quantified goal” at COP 29 in Baku.  This mainly means a fortune in climate redistribution from the developed to the developing world.

Delegates are all too aware that this spending largess in no way squares with President-elect Trump’s “America first” agenda, but they are hoping to wait him out as they did once before.

One surprising positive development, is that in the process of demanding redistribution, developing nations have woken up to one of the key absurdities of the UN climate regime.  Nations such as China and India are given a pass on emissions reductions and paying out funds.  This, despite the fact that China is the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases and boasts the second largest economy, while India’s economy is all the way up at number five.

This is due to something the UN calls “common, but differentiated responsibilities,” which has been baked into the climate regime going all the way back to 1997’s Kyoto Protocol.  China, meanwhile, holds $8.16 trillion of U.S. debt.

Wherever climate policy goes next, China should equally bear the pain and shoulder the responsibility they advocate for us.

President Obama shoveled $1 billion over to the UN’s Green Climate Fund shortly before President Trump began his first term.  This included $500 million transferred just three days before inauguration day.

Will the Biden Administration try to top that?

The last time President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement it took four years.  Under the terms of the Agreement, this time he can do it in one.

Let’s hope President Trump resurrects climate and energy reality for the U.S. and the world before much more damage is done.

Thank you to all of CFACT’s friends and readers who have given so generously to make CFACT’s Mission Azerbaijan possible.  CFACT is your eyes, ears and voice in the UN climate process.  We are approaching our goal, but still have a short way to go.  Please make the most generous gift you can right now.  We cannot do it without you.

In yet another chilling example of Orwellian overreach, the G20 Summit in Brazil has unveiled a new international effort to stifle dissent under the banner of “fighting disinformation.” This latest scheme, dubbed the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, is spearheaded by the United Nations and UNESCO. With a financial war chest provided by nations like the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden, this initiative isn’t about “truth” or “science”—it’s about control.

Bringing together countries, international organizations, and stakeholders worldwide, it aims to promote and defend information integrity on climate change, address disinformation, and enhance climate change awareness and action. It includes a global fund which will finance research into disinformation on climate change and initiatives to promote information integrity.

https://www.unesco.org/en/information-integrity-climate-change

Let’s call this what it is: a blatant attempt to silence anyone questioning the so-called climate crisis narrative. Under the guise of combating “misinformation,” these global bureaucracies aim to crush free thought and erase critical voices from the public square. This isn’t just an attack on skeptics—it’s an assault on open discourse itself.

The Initiative: A Wolf in Green Clothing

According to their public statements, the Initiative seeks to fund nonprofits for “research” and “public awareness campaigns.” They’re also creating what they call an “international research network” to identify and suppress so-called disinformation. In other words, they’re building an apparatus to label opposing viewpoints as dangerous lies and to justify censoring them into oblivion.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with his characteristic paternalism, declared disinformation a threat to climate action and even democracy itself. The not-so-subtle subtext? If you dare question their dogma, you’re the problem.

 “We must also take on climate disinformation,” Guterres said. “Our climate is at a breaking point.”

The History: Silencing Skeptics Since Day One

This isn’t the first time climate skeptics have been targeted. As far back as 2010, Google began manipulating search results to demote skeptical voices. A French study highlighted how skeptics dominated online search rankings at the time, leading to a concerted effort to bury their views beneath mountains of alarmist propaganda. Blogs like Pensée Unique and works by Claude Allègre drew enough attention to provoke the ire of the establishment.

Now, thanks to collusion between Big Tech, governments, and nonprofits, the “censorship industrial complex” has become a powerful and insidious force. Groups like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the United States, along with private entities like NewsGuard, routinely conspire to flag, suppress, and delegitimize dissenting voices.

We’ve seen this play out before. The Twitter Files laid bare the extent of this collusion, revealing how social media platforms partnered with government agencies to suppress stories and deplatform users who strayed from the approved narrative. This is not about protecting the public from falsehoods—it’s about eliminating debate.

Why the Fear?

The global elites are terrified of one thing: losing control. Despite decades of propaganda, public skepticism about catastrophic climate change has grown. Every failed prediction—from the “ice-free Arctic” to collapsing polar bear populations—chips away at their credibility. And with each new report showing the astronomical costs of Net Zero policies, more people are asking whether the so-called cure is worse than the disease.

Rather than answer these legitimate questions, the climate establishment resorts to silencing its critics. They know their models are flawed, their data cherry-picked, and their policy prescriptions ruinous. Yet instead of reevaluating their position, they double down on censorship.

The Real Cost of Silencing Dissent

This isn’t just a theoretical exercise. The consequences of suppressing climate skepticism are real and devastating. Policies like the Green New Deal and Net Zero come with enormous costs—both economically and socially. Entire industries are being dismantled, energy prices are skyrocketing, and developing nations are being strong-armed into abandoning affordable fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the so-called solutions—wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles—are riddled with problems, from unreliable energy output to massive environmental destruction. But pointing out these inconvenient truths now makes you a target of international suppression.

An Urgent Call to Action

Make no mistake: this is a battle for the soul of free inquiry. If the climate alarmists succeed in silencing dissent, the consequences will extend far beyond climate policy. The precedent being set is clear: disagree with the elite consensus, and you will be erased.

This isn’t just about climate skeptics—it’s about the right to ask questions, to demand evidence, and to hold those in power accountable. If these rights are surrendered, they won’t stop at climate change. The machinery of censorship, once built, will be used to silence dissent in every arena.

The G20’s initiative should outrage anyone who values freedom. It is not the job of governments or international organizations to decide which ideas are permissible. It’s time to push back against this authoritarian overreach and demand an open, honest debate about climate change—and everything else.

Because once they silence us, who will speak up for the truth?

Support the Fight for Free Inquiry

For almost two decades, Watts Up With That? has been a beacon for climate realism and a tireless advocate for free speech in the face of mounting censorship. As the world’s most viewed website on climate-related issues, it has stood firm against misinformation about “disinformation” and has provided a platform for science-based skepticism.

But this fight isn’t easy. Censorship, shadowbanning, and algorithmic manipulation have made it harder than ever to reach those who need to hear the truth. If you believe in the importance of open debate and the need to challenge prevailing narratives, consider supporting Watts Up With That?—whether through sharing articles, contributing financially, or simply spreading the word.

Now more than ever, your support matters. Together, we can ensure that the voices of reason, skepticism, and science remain strong.