The following content is sponsored by PragerU.
Two and a half months after North Carolina was hit by the devastating hurricane Helene, American families are still grappling with the loss of homes, livelihoods, and basic utilities like power. Cut off from the energy supply that we often take for granted, families are hunkering down with extremely limited options for survival in the harsh elements. This tragedy has fueled national conversations about energy production and climate change, issues that demand thoughtful, informed leadership amid controversy. So, why has President-elect Donald Trump’s refreshingly rational nominee for Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, triggered climate change hysterics?
Wright’s nomination has become a lightning rod for criticism, not because of any radical proposals, but because he represents a shift toward fact-based, practical energy policy. For an entrenched climate crisis industry, Wright’s leadership is seen as a threat to their narrative and influence, as are any voices who represent facts over fear and reality over activism. What makes Wright particularly compelling is his pragmatic, commonsense approach to some of the most polarizing issues in the climate and energy sectors. He acknowledges the reality of changes to the climate, which are historically ever-present and dependent on numerous complex factors, but which aren’t nearly as terrifying as people are intentionally led to believe.
“Fear is powerful,” Wright explained to PragerU CEO Marissa Streit. “If you can make someone scared of something, you can generate opposition to it.” The problem with fear-based agendas, he argues, is that they often lead to unrealistic, shortsighted policies that ultimately backfire or simply aren’t as effective in the long run as more sensibly considered options. By contrast, Wright focuses on realistic, sustainable solutions that consider both current needs and future progress. His leadership could bring the sober, fact-based approach that energy policy so desperately needs, but that climate change hysterics so desperately despise.
Watch the PragerU interview with Chris Wright:
Environmental activists and organizations have a vested interest in stoking panic to stay relevant. They push agendas that line their pockets and keep them in control like the Green New Deal. Do they change their position when their narratives don’t align with scientific facts, the reality of our energy landscape, or the best interest of the people? Not one bit. While true science is based on challenging assumptions and investigating hypotheses from all angles, climate catastrophizers often mercilessly attack anyone who dares to question their climate crisis orthodoxy. Educational nonprofit PragerU is no stranger to this battle between facts and fear, as they are all too often targeted by activists who weaponize fear and undermine constructive dialogue.
In a concerted effort to discredit PragerU and the thoughtful conversations it elevates, The Guardian and others have disparagingly described the organization as “a rightwing media outlet promoting climate-crisis denialism and other ‘anti-woke’ staples,” as well as being “also known for spreading disinformation.”
Despite such criticism, PragerU is committed to promoting truth, fostering rational dialogue, and offering alternate perspectives on climate, energy, and the environment. They have given a platform to a variety of professors, scientists, engineers, and environmentalists like Mark Mills, Alex Epstein, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Michael Shellenberger, and many more. PragerU videos seek to answer questions that many skeptics of climate hysteria ask but are rarely answered like, “Is there really a climate emergency?” or “Is nuclear energy safe?” or “What’s wrong with wind and solar?”
To the chagrin of the radical climate movement, these experts have received significant attention as the public becomes aware of an entire bureaucracy and lucrative activism industry that has grown around environmental alarmism. Climate hysterics’ campaign against PragerU, Wright, and any alternative voices in the climate and energy conversation is symptomatic of a broader problem: a powerful climate change lobby that profits from catastrophism and resists anyone who attempts to offer rationality or balance. This lobby has painted fossil fuels as an unequivocal villain while ignoring the essential role they play in supporting industries like farming, manufacturing, and even medicine, not to mention providing affordable energy to billions of people in developing countries across the globe.
Standing up to this fear-driven orthodoxy requires courage and conviction, as does investment in innovation and progress that breaks from the narrative. We can responsibly protect natural resources while rejecting existential fear that manipulates us into short-sighted, knee-jerk policy decisions that appease aggressive activists. We must recognize the complexity of energy issues and the need for thoughtful, innovative solutions that benefit everyone, not just the loudest voices in the room.
There is both a political and cultural shift happening as more people are waking up and publicly joining the fight against climate hysteria. Americans are starting to move beyond fear and toward policies rooted in reality, driven by science, and focused on prosperity. It’s time to challenge the activists who weaponize fear and instead embrace facts over rhetoric. The future of America, and perhaps the world, depends on it.
