Energy Realism Goes Global
I'm here for it.
Good afternoon,
For you newbies out there, welcome to Outsider on the Inside. I hope this dispatch from in and around the nation’s capital on underreported topics finds you well.
If you’re just discovering my musings, here’s a backgrounder and make sure we’re connected on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube.
I’ll return to regular posting schedule this Friday. Stay tuned!
Quick Thoughts
Support and follow the work of IWF’s Center for Energy and Conservation today if you haven’t already.
Mr. President, please lay off AI for a bit.
Yes, Spain’s reliance on intermittent solar energy precipitated last week’s blackouts.
Not just “drill baby drill”: President Trump’s Interior Department announced yesterday it will open “42 new proposed hunting opportunities across more than 87,000 acres within the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System.”
The FY 2026 budget was just unveiled. I agree with gutting wasteful green energy programs, but don’t agree with defunding the National Park Service to the tune of $900 million and transferring it to the states. Could there be room for improvement? Absolutely! But debt is NOT the same as deferred maintenance backlog (which Biden increased by $8B across his four years.)The real problem: entitlement programs that comprise 60% of discretionary spending. Congress doesn’t always approve everything proposed in the budget. I doubt this language will end up in the final text.
The Trump administration is undoing the atrocious Biden-Harris Department of Labor independent contractor rule.
The U.S. economy added 177,000+ new non-farm jobs, despite tariff uncertainty, in April. Last month’s market losses were erased, too.
That’s all for now. Stay tuned for the next dispatch dropping Friday.
A Time for Choosing: Energy Realism
I went to an energy policy lunch at Google’s DC offices to learn about their priorities and was surprised, in a good way, to see them abandon net-zero posturing for energy abundance.
Attendees got a preview of Google’s new Powering a New Era of American Innovation report. Throughout the talk, company representatives mentioned advanced nuclear, geothermal, and natural gas - not solar and wind - would help power the future.
Even without explicitly repudiating net-zero, I was pleased to see they pivoted away from the “clean energy transition” jargon to that of “abundance, reliability, and security” given the robust power demand required by AI data centers.
Outside of America, our energy posturing is catching on to our friends and allies. Energy Secretary Chris Wright delivered memorable remarks at the Three Seas Initiative held in Warsaw, Poland this past week. There, he echoed the late President Reagan’s famous “A Time for Choosing Speech” - but with an energy twist.
As a lifelong energy entrepreneur, please allow me to be blunt regarding another fork in the road. This is a “time for choosing”, to quote the late, great President Ronald Reagan.
After the Global Financial Crisis 15 years ago, the major nations of Western Europe — not Central Europe — choose one side of a fork in the road and the U.S. chose the other side. On one side is energy for the sake of human flourishing. Energy that is abundant, secure, affordable and reliable. Energy that comes from innovation and choice.
This is the road to economic growth, advancing the interests of our citizens and securing the economic and national security of our nations. A simple realization that energy’s true purpose is to better human lives. Full stop.
…
But I can say that climate alarmism has clearly reduced energy freedom, and, hence, prosperity and national security across Western Europe. Let me say that again. Climate alarmism has reduced freedom, prosperity, and national security.
On the other hand, top-down diktats have not been successful in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
Wright weighed in on whether climate change is catastrophic. He argued it’s natural phenomenon, counter to net-zero decarbonization claims.
While climate change is a real physical phenomenon, nothing in the data indicates that climate change is even close to the world’s most urgent problem. In fact, the clarion conclusion from economic studies of climate change is that Net Zero 2050 is absolutely the wrong goal. Not only is it unachievable, but the blind pursuit of it will cause, is causing, far more human damage than climate change itself.
He ended his speech on a high note:
Central Europe faces a time for choosing. You all have a long history of choosing freedom and sovereignty for your citizens.
We warmly welcome you to join us on Team Energy Freedom and prosperity for citizens. President Trump’s agenda of prosperity at home and peace abroad is a team sport!
I’ll explore this more in a forthcoming Townhall.com op-ed later this week.
ICYMI
Articles/commentary/media appearances/videos from the past week.
MEDIA MENTIONS
I was quoted in Telegraph UK about the implications of baby bonus policies.
ARTICLES/BLOGS
n/a
District of Conservation
Catch up on District of Conservation episodes below.
And check out a new episodes of The Sportswoman Show with Maple Farmer Nikki Boxler.
Thank you for reading! Let me know your thoughts and encourage your friends to subscribe to the newsletter too.
—Gabriella
Appreciate the emphasis on pragmatic, “all-of-the-above” solutions. Ensuring reliable, affordable energy while lowering emissions will look different across regions, especially where grid resilience and economic growth are still fragile. I’m curious: which policies or market incentives do you see as most effective for scaling advanced nuclear and next-gen geothermal alongside traditional sources, without locking in emissions-heavy infrastructure long-term? A nuanced roadmap that phases technologies in and out based on local baselines could bridge the realism–climate gap you describe.
nicely done, thank you.
though I am not surprised at your dislike of the move, how does transferring $900 million from NPS to the states hurt the park system. Am I mistaken to assume that money would be spent on maintenance by the states as well? Moving control (maintenance only) of these parks to a local entity seems like a good idea.
do you see this as a precursor to shrinking the National Park System? releasing the land from federal control entirely? if so, do you think energy concerns are behind the move (open up drilling), or is it more an issue of budget?