During a European visit, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright urged the International Energy Agency (IEA) to drop its aggressive greenhouse-gas reduction goals and shift policy toward fossil fuels. Appointed by former President Trump and formerly the CEO of fracking firm Liberty Energy, Wright labelled the IEA’s transition targets a “destructive illusion” and warned the United States could withdraw from the agency if those goals were not abandoned within a year.
Wright has been a vocal critic of what he calls “climate alarmism.” His department released a controversial July 2025 report that minimized the projected economic harms of CO2-driven warming, even as other studies estimate climate-related extreme-weather damages at roughly $120 billion (€101 billion) for 2025.
He argues that policies accelerating the clean-energy transition have damaged US and EU economies, saying Europe’s move away from fossil fuels has curtailed economic opportunities and that climate-focused policies have eroded energy freedom, prosperity and security in Western Europe.
Many energy and policy experts dispute that assessment. Sam Alvis, associate director for environment and energy security at the UK’s Institute for Public Policy Research, says the claim that renewables have hurt European economies is “couldn’t be further from the truth.” Over a quarter of the EU’s energy now comes from low-carbon sources, and onshore solar and wind are among the cheapest power options in a region with limited domestic fossil fuels.
The cost of solar panels has fallen dramatically—roughly 90% over the past decade—largely due to expanded manufacturing capacity in China. Research from the University of Surrey found solar is now the cheapest large-scale power source globally, undercutting coal, gas and even some wind projects. By contrast, fossil-fuel prices have been volatile: European electricity and gas prices spiked after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, when much of the bloc’s gas supplies were threatened. That shock increased Europe’s reliance on US liquefied natural gas (LNG) and strengthened arguments for more investment in domestic renewables.
Julie McNamara, deputy policy director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says that competitive economies need abundant, affordable clean power, and that attempts to lock in more fossil-fuel use risk undermining climate and energy commitments.
Spain is cited as a case where renewables have delivered economic benefits. After a large-scale rollout of wind and solar, Spain—once the EU’s most expensive electricity market in 2019—saw wholesale power prices fall by about 75% by 2025, according to Ember. Greater renewable output has sharply reduced coal and gas on Spain’s grid; its share of fossil-fuel generation is now roughly half that of more gas-dependent Germany.
Wright has also suggested some countries privately want to rebuild fossil-fuel industries to boost competitiveness and reindustrialize. Critics counter that electrified technologies are far more efficient than burning fuels: Sam Alvis notes electric technologies can be roughly four times more efficient than combustion-based systems, so electrification can provide an immediate productivity advantage. They argue that lagging economic performance in some places reflects slow adoption of electrification and related technologies—China’s lead in electric vehicles is often cited as an example.
Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute says Wright’s downplaying of fossil-fuel harms and skepticism toward renewables aligns with a policy priority of “American Energy Dominance,” which emphasizes expanding US fossil-fuel exports and views stringent climate policy as an obstacle to that objective.
Edited by: Tamsin Walker