Why I strongly support Chris Wright for Secretary of Energy

An in-depth interview I did about Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright, who was recently nominated for Secretary of Energy.

For the last several months, whenever I was asked who should be the next Secretary of Energy, I emphatically answered: Chris Wright!

So I was thrilled when Chris was nominated last Saturday for Secretary of Energy. Here’s an in-depth interview I did with a reporter shortly after the announcement. (The reporter said I could publish the whole discussion so long as he could remain anonymous. I have also paraphrased his comments to further protect anonymity.)

Enjoy!

Chris Wright, founder and CEO of Liberty Energy

---

Reporter:

When I was looking into Chris Wright’s views of oil and gas being a great thing for the world, I thought, “this is exactly the kind of stuff that Alex Epstein talks about.” So I was wondering if you could say a little bit about: to what extent are Chris Wright’s views about energy in line with yours?

Alex Epstein:

Chris and I are extremely aligned, almost uncannily so. I say uncannily so because unlike many executives who I think have primarily come to this kind of view through my work, Chris, in my understanding, mostly came to similar conclusions on his own.

We first met in late 2015 or so, something like that. I was in Colorado and we happened to do a debate together. A guy named Aaron Harber, who’s a really interesting politically neutral host, wanted me to come in and do a debate. And then he teamed me with this guy, Chris Wright, whom I hadn’t heard of.

I was quite impressed that this is a CEO who’s A) willing to say these kinds of things, and B) unusually knowledgeable about multiple aspects of the issue. So not just the energy part of it, but the climate part of it. I thought he had a much more nuanced view of the climate part of it than other CEOs I’ve encountered.

Sometimes with CEOs—there’s no universal thing, but sometimes what you’ll see—is people will publicly just say something vague like, “Climate change is a serious problem” and you get that level of superficiality. Or sometimes people will say, “Do fossil fuels cause global warming at all?” It often goes between those two things.

And Chris, like me, had much more of the idea of, no, there is a greenhouse effect and we need to think carefully about: what’s the magnitude of that, what are the negatives of that, what are the positives of that? And then, in the case of the negatives, what are the offsetting positives that we get from fuels that we wouldn’t have if we didn’t have fossil fuels?

So I found him to just be very aligned with me then. And I think having gotten to know him subsequently, knowing his history, we don’t have the exact same intellectual influences, but both of us have very pro-liberty backgrounds as you can see with his “Liberty Energy.” And we both have a strong interest in how liberty makes human life better.

I would say although I certainly have an interest in how liberty particularly makes life better for the world’s poorest people, that’s probably Chris’s focus. That’s been his focus for many decades. And he definitely sees energy as part of the picture that more broadly includes liberty.

And he also—I think this is another place we align—he also definitely thinks of supporting primarily not fossil fuels or oil and gas, but rather abundant, cost-effective energy. And he, like I, believes that fossil fuels will remain uniquely cost-effective and scalable for the foreseeable future. And the world needs far more energy, if you recognize the world is mostly poor. So we both come at it from that perspective, not from the perspective of having a favoritism.

Reporter:

Right, it’s like, energy is great, and fossil fuels work great for energy.

Alex Epstein:

Yeah. We would love if something better came along—and the sooner, the better. But we try to be objective about the competitive advantage fossil fuels have. I think of it on the level of silicon in semiconductors. It’s like, you’ve got these physical properties that are very hard to replicate, and then you have generations of smart people building an industry around those specific physical properties. That’s something very, very hard for something to rapidly replace and you could do a lot of damage.

Reporter:

There are good reasons to get away from silicon, but yes.

Alex Epstein:

I don’t know specifically there, but you could think about this with other things as well. If you think about the technology of—again, just my view—but the technologies involved in antibiotics and vaccination, people could say I think with more plausibility with antibiotics, but they could say, “Well, there’s certain things I don’t like about antibiotics.” They have resistance, et cetera. But then you think about, well, we don’t have a better way of dealing with all kinds of different infections, so we should seek out a better way.

We should always seek out better ways of everything, but we should still champion antibiotics as long as they’re the best solution for all these different use cases.

Reporter:

What would it be like to have that view in leading the Department of Energy, not just in contrast with the Biden administration, but even, say, in contrast with Dan Brouillette and Rick Perry? What do you think are the kind of policies that could stem from those sorts of views?

Alex Epstein:

So I think there are a few things, and one thing I’ll say about the Department of Energy position that is known to anyone who knows about energy (but worth highlighting) is the Department of Energy does not deal primarily with the vast majority of energy, and it deals a lot with things like nuclear materials. And so it’s actually not at all automatic that even when a good person is head of the Department of Energy that they will have all that much effect on energy—although I do believe that they can, and I think Chris almost certainly will.

And so the opportunities to affect it, let’s just say few of the biggest opportunities are, one is DOE has oversight of FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has oversight of electricity, at least most of electricity, let’s say—it doesn’t have full oversight over generation, although it has some. And then we have the natural gas pipeline system.

These are likely the two most crucial parts of our energy system for the next several years because the grid is obviously the basis of electricity and has enormous supply and reliability problems currently and on the horizon as demand increases. And then with the natural gas pipeline system, that is really the choke point for US natural gas reaching its potential. US natural gas is by far the fastest scaling way we have of increasing energy production in general and electricity production in particular, but it’s bottlenecked by pipelines.

So in both of those cases, FERC has oversight. Now, FERC is one of these quasi-independent agencies, but DOE can exercise a lot of positive leadership over it, including directly and also in consultation with the President of the United States. And now also Doug Burgum, whom I also think is excellent, is going to be in charge of this National Energy Council, which hasn’t been fully, at least to me, hasn’t been fully fleshed out.

But I think somebody like Chris who understands the problems and also the fundamental solutions with FERC can do an enormous amount of good improving the electricity system as head of DOE. But it takes a very special person with a bunch of different skills and knowledge, including very good communication skills, knowledge of policy, knowledge of technical stuff, putting together the right team. It takes a very specific person, which is why when people asked me—like many people, I get asked who I would recommend—Chris was my number one recommendation by far. My number one recommendation for any energy position, period. And then also Doug Burgum was actually my number one for Interior.

So in terms of the energy picks, those two in particular have gone well. And I suspect that because Chris is in charge of DOE, that increases the probability of having good picks for the Chairman of FERC and the Chairman of the NRC. And that’s one of the other crucial things that the Secretary of Energy can influence is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, both by selecting the right Chairman and Commissioners for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but also having a vision of what needs to change there.

And Chris has a benefit in terms of he’s long been interested in nuclear energy. He started out in fusion at MIT, but he’s quite knowledgeable about fission and very interested in what can be done to really unleash the potential of nuclear energy by really having, I would say, proper scientific policies, which I do not think the NRC does.

They have a lot of pseudoscience that makes them treat nuclear, which is actually the safest form of energy, as the most dangerous form of energy and their mission as an agency is essentially to eliminate all nuclear risk at essentially all costs. And that just makes us have more expensive and more dangerous energy, because if you try to eliminate all risk from the safest thing, then you end up with more dangerous things.

And then actually the third thing I would say in general is the Secretary of Energy, because of the title, also has a significant, at least potential, bully pulpit to exercise leadership in energy, to express opinions about this.

So for example, Governor then Secretary Perry, I think one of the things he did that was very valuable that was perhaps underrated, is he made quite a big focus of the power of American energy and energy in general to alleviate poverty in the developing and undeveloped world. In fact, he and I met—we subsequently became quite close and have a great relationship now—but we actually met when I was speaking in South Africa in 2017, and we really bonded over this issue. So that’s an example of, it’s not just the policy, but you can prioritize this as a thing in government. Obviously, Chris, given his interests, I would guess this will definitely be a focus of his insofar as he’s talking publicly about energy, how the world needs more energy.

Reporter:

Could you elaborate a bit more on the importance of Chris being a strong communicator on energy?

Alex Epstein:

I think in any cabinet position, it’s a big asset to be a very good communicator. With energy in particular, it’s incredibly important because there’s such intense emotion that people have about these issues and so many common over-simplified ways of characterizing and mischaracterizing people that it’s really a benefit to be an exceptional communicator with a very nuanced mastery of the subject.

So the climate issue, for example, the public debate just goes between, “We have no impact on climate and therefore fossil fuels are okay, climate change is a hoax,” that kind of view versus, “Fossil fuels impact climate, it’s the end of the world, and therefore we should rapidly get rid of fossil fuels.” It’s like a very un-nuanced thing.

You need somebody who has—well, I think Chris has the right views on these—but in any case, you need somebody who can express views on this with a lot of clarity and precision because whatever the new administration does on energy is certainly going to create a lot of controversy, and it’s much, much better if you have a communicator who can explain why that is.

So for example, I certainly don’t control what the administration does, and I don’t know what they’ll do, but let’s say they withdraw from the Paris Agreement—which of course I would advocate—but I think it’s important to have a very clear explanation of why you’re doing that, what the considerations are, et cetera, not just do it because you happen to be in power. So I think Chris is really important there, and that’s one of the reasons why I was such a big supporter and will continue to be a big supporter. It’s his nuanced understanding. The main thing is the internal clarity, but then his ability to communicate it is important.

And then I would also say that he has a very unusual track record of being courageous in that he has had the same views expressed, whether he’s been a private company or public company. It’s very unusual for the CEO of a public company—particularly in the modern ESG era, which is fading a little bit, but Chris was doing this the whole time—to say, “Hey, I think fossil fuels are good for humanity, and I believe that we impact climate, but I don’t think that it’s catastrophic, and I don’t think we should use that as an excuse to deprive people of energy.” He’s willing to say these controversial things. I don’t think they should be controversial, but he’s willing to say them when very few are.

There was an event—I won’t say what the event is because it was one of these Chatham House Rules things—but we were at an event once, and this was almost during peak Larry Fink net-zero. Even Larry Fink now is retreating from net-zero and saying we need natural gas for data centers and stuff. But this was at the peak of that. And I remember I was the annoying one at the conference because I was the one saying, “I don’t think net-zero targets are good and here’s why, et cetera.”

And it’s one thing for me to say it. I’m a public commentator. Controversy doesn’t really hurt me in the same way. A lot of people buy my books and hire me to speak and stuff, even if I’m controversial. Whereas Chris, he basically said all the same things near the end of the conference and was just lighting into everyone, but he had a public company—and these are people who could finance his things.

So he and I really bond over, maybe above anything else, I think we bond over the idea that it’s your job, if you’re going to be speaking, to say what you think is the truth. And so that’s heartening to me, that he believes this that strongly.

Reporter:

One quote from Chris that’s getting a lot of attention is, “There’s no climate crisis.” Usually it’s taken out of context and doesn’t include that he also says climate change is real—but do you agree with that statement? And then, can you tell me a bit about what it does or doesn’t mean?

Alex Epstein:

Yeah, so he often makes these two statements, and I agree with them. Or the way, I’ll put it in my own terms, which I agree with and which I think are consistent with what he says, is: the two leading terms that we use to discuss climate and energy refer to things that do not exist. And they are “climate crisis” and “energy transition.”

The energy transition one’s a little easier to explain. So people say we’re in an “energy transition” as if we’re rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels. But fossil fuels, we still have an addition, we even have an addition of fossil fuels. And then the other technologies that are being added are energy additions. So this has changed a little bit, but when people are describing the energy transition and they act as if we’re rapidly getting away from fossil fuels, and then when they use that as the primary noun to describe what’s happening in energy, that’s biasing the thinking.

So I’ll use terms like “energy evolution,” which I think is probably the clearest way of thinking about it because then you could just look at the facts: hey, how is energy evolving? And so with “energy transition,” I don’t use that term and I think that’s why he said that about energy transition.

And then in terms of “climate crisis,” it’s again unfortunate. I think it’s really bad when your primary noun to describe an area of reality has a controversial evaluation attached to it. So you can say, even if you believe that we have a climate crisis, I think you should talk about, well, we have the state of climate or state of climate livability, and I think it’s in a crisis state. But when you just look outside and say, “Hey, this is the climate crisis,” I don’t think that’s really honest because to argue that climate is a crisis requires a complex chain of reasoning.

I’m looking outside right now. It doesn’t look like a climate crisis to me. Most people don’t experience a climate crisis in the way that they would an energy crisis, right, when they’re having shortages and in line and stuff like that. So A) I think it’s a leading thing, that that term has become this untouchable noun, but then B) for me, a crisis is something that is in a very bad state and getting worse. And I think from the perspective of human life in relation to climate—so what I focus on in my work, and this isn’t Chris’s term, but I think it’s compatible—is climate livability.

So, how much are we threatened by climate and how much do we benefit from climate? At the moment, I believe that has never been better.

And one of the things Chris, like I, cites is the very nonpartisan statistics about climate-related disaster deaths being at all time lows: they’ve rapidly declined over the last 100 years and even the last 40 years. And it’s because our ability to master climate has far outpaced any new climate challenges.

So climate livability is a function of what’s your ability to master climate danger and also what’s the climate benefit. So with snow, right, snow used to be a menace, and now it’s something we pay to go to in Utah and Colorado.

It’s like, your climate mastery ability and the state of the climate system, you can’t look at those separately any more than you can look at your livability with disease without looking at, well, all the things you have to counter it. Even if there’s a bunch of polio floating around, well, if we have polio vaccines, then we don’t have a polio crisis.

And so with climate, you can believe that we’ve added some new challenges to the global climate system, but our level of mastery has far outpaced that, and that’s given us a level of resilience that makes our climate situation much better.

So when you say it’s not a climate crisis—and this isn’t Chris’s term, but I’ll say it to be provocative, but I think it’s also accurate—we’re actually in a climate renaissance. As in, human beings have never had a safer and more enjoyable relationship with their surroundings.

I think ultimately the view of climate crisis from people who know that we’re safer than ever from climate is actually a difference in morality, where they evaluate good and bad by how little or how much we’ve impacted the Earth. So they think the fact that we’ve impacted climate somewhat significantly—not as significantly as some people think, but somewhat significantly, so if we’ve led to most of a one degree Celsius, two degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise—they think that’s immoral. And that’s why it’s a crisis, that we had no right to do it, that we shouldn’t impact climate.

But it’s about evaluating the world and the climate by the standard of less or no human impact is good and more human impact is bad, and it’s a crisis because we impacted it, not because it’s bad for us.

---

Questions about this article? Ask AlexAI, my chatbot for energy and climate answers:

---

Popular links

• EnergyTalkingPoints.com: Hundreds of concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.

• My new book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.

• Speaking and media inquiries

---

“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.