U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 17, 2025 12:37 PM UTC

Colorado's Chris Wright Says "Drill Baby Burn"

  • 20 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

 

Energy Secretary nominee Chris Wright.

The Washington Post’s Maxine Joselow reports on the confirmation hearing for Denver’s pre-eminent pontiff of the Church of Petroleum, fossil fuel executive and now Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as the next Secretary of Energy Chris Wright–who in the context of Trump’s historic parade of deplorable nominees for key Cabinet posts is considered relatively uncontroversial, despite his well-demonstrated contempt for the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change and near-religious devotion to fossil fuels in an era when the global economy needs to be moving away from them.

A contempt that Wright demonstrated again this week, refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus that climate change is worsening and increasing the frequency of destructive wildfires like those presently raging in Los Angeles:

In the summer of 2023, as smoke from Canadian wildfires engulfed the East Coast, Wright wrote on LinkedIn that “the hype over wildfires is just hype to justify” harmful climate policies. He linked to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist and author who contends that experts have overstated the negative impacts of climate change.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) slammed Wright’s comment about “hype” in a tense exchange during the confirmation hearing Wednesday before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

“The climate crisis and its deadly effects is very real to my neighbors and my constituents,” Padilla said. “It’s pretty disappointing to come across some social media posts of yours. … Do you still believe that wildfires are just hype?”

After a bit of back and forth:

After the Democrat pressed him further, he added, “I stand by my past comments.” [Pols emphasis]

Because Wright hails from Colorado, he was introduced at his confirmation hearing by Sen. John Hickenlooper, who as Colorado Public Radio’s Caitlyn Kim reports made clear that he has plenty of disagreements with Wright:

Following tradition, Sen. John Hickenlooper introduced his fellow Coloradan, saying the two disagree on a lot of things, but that Wright is a successful entrepreneur and is open to discussion.

“He’s indeed an unrestrained enthusiast for fossil fuels in almost every regard, but he studied nuclear,’ said Hickenlooper in his opening. “His first years working were in solar. He has experience in wind. He is a practitioner and a key innovator around geothermal.”

Although Wright paid lip service to the existence of human-caused climate change while questioned on the subject by Sen. Hickenlooper and other Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it was Wright’s refusal to acknowledge the role of climate change in the devastating California wildfires dominating the headlines that drew the most attention. This is a connection that both scientists and the insurance industry are increasingly certain about, and here in Colorado we have already suffered from similar effects in the devastating Marshall Fire in December of 2021.

With Senate Republicans more inclined to place blame on “DEI policies” for the Los Angeles fires than climate change, we’re obviously not talking about a mistake for Wright that will imperil his nomination. Addressing human-caused climate change was not the priority of the majority of voters who re-elected Donald Trump, and Wright is an Energy Secretary nominee who reflects that prioritization. If Wright is (sorry) right, and climate change is not increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires, history may remember Secretary Wright for keeping the price of gas under three bucks a gallon like it is today.

If the science is right and the periphery of American cities continue to burn, Chris Wright will be remembered less positively.

Comments

20 thoughts on “Colorado’s Chris Wright Says “Drill Baby Burn”

  1. "DEI policies (responsible) for the Los Angeles wildfires……

    Reminds me of the late and unlamented evangelist, Pat Robertson, saying that hurricanes were "god's" punishment for abortions and homosexuality.

  2. The energy policies on both sides are a fucking mess. Biden went heavy on Wind (which is pure greenwashing) and Solar (which is useful in part but doesn't have the energy density to make a big difference).

    Both sides are talking up Nuclear, but not giving it close to the effort and attention it should have. And gas is the best transition to nuclear which Wright will give more attention to (good) but hopefully will not be a proponent of coal.

    But the giant problem on global warming is not the U.S. Its the developing and third world. They're going to significantly boost their electricity generation, which makes sense for them. If we want to reduce global warming, we should focus on helping the rest of the world build gas generators instead of coal today and nuclear tomorrow.

    Simply getting most new generators to be CCGT instead of coal worldwide will have more impact than making the U.S. 100% renewable. In addition the first action is very doable. The second is impossible and horrendously expensive to attempt.

    1. Uh, there's a lot to address here. I'll just mention a couple issues. Talk to me about nuclear if/when the U.S. cleans up the radioactive contamination we already have from all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. Colorado has at least one Superfund site (a former uranium mill) that has not only not yet been properly assessed but is years away from a cleanup. The site contaminated private water wells in a nearby neighborhood and though that happened decades ago, there is no cleanup plan. Radioactive waste – even low level waste – is carcinogenic and causes a variety of other health issues. And perhaps I've missed a brand new plan for dealing with spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants . . . 

        1. Yeah I guess you didn't read the article – thorium-based reactors produce low-level radioactive waste that can easily be safely disposed of and the fuel production cycle is much more efficient than the Godzilla fuel we're using now.

          SCIENCE!

          https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/its-an-efficient-machine-to-destroy-nuclear-waste-nuclear-future-powered-by-thorium-beckons/4019310.article

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421513003157

          But the tiny country is already looking at this: 

          https://www.tudelft.nl/en/delft-outlook/articles/the-nederlands-will-really-need-a-thorium-reactor

           

    2. BTW David citing your own Substack is not a substitute for evidence. Wind Power is working well in the EU and it's deployment is going to continue as it succeeds (in 2022 it was 37% of all energy used in the EU, and in the Netherlands it powers the entire train grid). 

        1. I think you should take a break from energy reporting or substack in general. Maybe do some CBT mindfulness exercises like maybe im wrong…

          1. I always wonder if I'm wrong. I've put a lot of posts up on reddit about energy asking questions, showing the math and asking what I missed, etc. I think one of the big reasons my company was successful is I listened to people when they disagreed with me. And if they had the data, we went with their suggestion.

            Follow the math and let me know if I got something wrong. If I did I'll correct it.

            As to take a break – I find the grid fascinating. I understand semiconductor fabrication pretty well because of past jobs. And that is an almost unbelievable process. The tolerances are almost impossible.

            The grid is equally fascinating. Easily the largest machine built by man. And every instance the energy generated matches the energy consumed – across the whole grid. And the way they pull that off is incredible.

            It definitely beats focusing on Trump.

            1. You are wrong, David. In your uncritical support of nuclear power,  you neglect to mention the people who live with nuclear waste, the cost to store the waste , the unavailability of such storage,and the fallout (literally) of uranium production from beginning to end. 

              Your blithe proclamation that no future windmill should be built , since natural gas production will give us everything we need, you neglect factors such as that the methane content in natural gas production put it on a par with coal. You also do not mention the social costs of breathing methane and other natural gas products, pollution of water from fracking- there are so many externalized costs that you just gloss over. 

              Social or externalized costs cannot be neglected when you are summing up the benefits of any particular type of energy.

              I won't insert my usual place of links, but will instead refer you to the local think tank that has been studying cost and benefits of different sources of energy and economies for decades not weeks. Rocky Mountain Institute has done the math on energy and their results are different than yours –  because they take social cost into account as you do not.

               

               

               

  3. Ya know, the Secretary of Energy has relatively little to do DIRECTLY with petroleum or coal.

    An organization called Master Class summarized the duties this way:

    A large percentage of the US secretary of energy's duties relate to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The role has also expanded to focus more on renewable energy, energy policy, and combating climate change. Some of the duties of the secretary of energy include:

    • Nuclear weapons: The National Nuclear Security Administration maintains the nation's nuclear weapons program and promotes nuclear safety worldwide.
    • Research: The US Department of Energy maintains a series of national laboratories that house scientific research
    • Climate change: Through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), the role promotes clean power and combats climate change.
    • Green alternatives: The energy secretary electrifies sectors commonly linked to fossil fuels by promoting technologies, such as electric vehicles and modern electric stoves.
    • Energy production: The secretary collaborates with the White House, Congress, and other cabinet departments (such as the Department of the Interior) to manage US energy production.

    Here's hoping the guy likes learning OR is going to be able to trust in a high-powered set of deputies and others who advise him.

      1. Hope away … but the combination of petroleum experience (and success), Republican / MAGA credentials that got him selected, and the knowledge that decisions are going to be made by Trump to be rationalized, implemented, and advocated by Project 2025 personnel doesn't leave me a great deal of hope. 

        1. You are right to be skeptical about the POV and potential policies of OilyBoy, Chris Wright.  In my experience with the breed, you cannot rise to the top of that food chain and simultaneously hold on to a firm grip on the truth. You must demonstrate a belief that the oil ndustry is the most important industry on the planet and should be subsidized fully and completely self- regulated. 

           

           

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

80 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!