Last week in Paris, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright — a Trump appointee and former fracking CEO — urged the International Energy Agency to abandon its clean-energy goals and return to fossil fuels. At the IEA’s headquarters he called deep emission cuts a “destructive illusion” and warned the United States might leave the agency if it did not change course within a year. Wright’s department had earlier published a controversial July 2025 report downplaying the economic harms of CO2-driven warming, even as climate-exacerbated extreme weather is estimated to have caused roughly $120 billion (€101 billion) in damages in 2025 alone.
Wright argues that policies to phase out fossil fuels have damaged both US and European economies, calling the clean-energy push a “climate cult” that reduced economic opportunities and energy freedom in Europe. Critics say that claim is wrong. Sam Alvis, associate director for environment and energy security at the UK’s Institute for Public Policy Research, notes that more than a quarter of the EU’s energy now comes from clean sources and that onshore solar and wind remain the cheapest forms of power in a region with limited domestic fossil reserves.
Solar-panel costs have plunged by about 90% over the past decade, largely due to growing Chinese manufacturing capacity, making utility-scale solar among the cheapest sources of electricity globally. Fossil-fuel prices have been volatile — the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine sent European electricity and gas prices to record highs and exposed the continent’s vulnerability after losing Russian supplies. That volatility, and concerns about reliance on liquefied natural gas imports (including from the US), has intensified European calls for more domestic renewables to reduce exposure to global fuel-market swings.
Proponents of the clean transition point to broader economic benefits beyond price stability. Julie McNamara of the Union of Concerned Scientists argues that competitive, forward-looking economies need abundant clean power, and that US efforts to boost fossil fuels risk undermining Europe’s strategic commitments. Spain is frequently cited as an example: rapid wind and solar deployment drove wholesale power prices sharply down. Ember, the energy think tank, said Spain’s power prices were roughly 75% lower by 2025 than when it was the EU’s most expensive market in 2019, as renewables displaced coal and gas.
Supporters also highlight electrification: switching transport and industry to electricity is far more efficient than burning hydrocarbons. Alvis points out electrified technologies can be roughly four times more efficient than fossil-fuel alternatives, meaning electrification can deliver immediate productivity gains. He argues Europe’s lost opportunities stem less from renewables than from being slow to adopt electrified technologies, allowing faster-moving competitors — notably China’s electric-vehicle industry — to take the lead.
Observers frame Wright’s push as part of an “American Energy Dominance” agenda. Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute says US efforts to expand fossil-fuel exports are intended to increase global dependence on US supplies, with domestic and international climate policy seen as obstacles to that goal.
The debate thus pits an industry-backed effort to preserve jobs and geopolitical influence through oil and gas against mounting evidence that renewables can deliver cheaper, more reliable power while supporting new industries. Whether the EU’s renewable build-out can outmuscle US oil and gas will hinge on policy choices, the scale and speed of investment, and how quickly governments and markets embrace electrification and the mass deployment of clean technologies.