MxM News

Quick Hit:

In a recent op-ed for RealClearEnergy, Benjamin Dierker argues that carbon emissions will decrease under the administration of President Donald Trump, despite criticism from environmentalists. Dierker points to historical trends and the potential for innovation as key factors. He contends that reducing government regulation and embracing performance-based incentives will lead to more efficient and cleaner energy solutions.

Key Details:

• In his first week back in office, President Trump exited the Paris Climate Accord, removed restrictions on LNG exports, and boosted the hydrocarbon industry, prompting environmentalists to warn of climate setbacks.

• Dierker predicts that by 2030, these moves will result in lower carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions due to increased innovation.

• He argues that historical data shows U.S. carbon emissions have been declining since peaking in 2005-2007, largely due to the shift from coal to natural gas.

Diving Deeper:

Benjamin Dierker, writing for RealClearEnergy, challenges conventional environmental narratives by predicting a decline in carbon emissions under President Donald Trump’s administration. In his op-ed, “Why Carbon Emissions Will Fall Under Trump,” Dierker cites historical trends and advances in innovation as reasons why emissions will decrease despite the administration’s pro-hydrocarbon policies.

Dierker highlights Trump’s early actions, including exiting the Paris Climate Accord, lifting LNG export restrictions, and promoting hydrocarbon development in Alaska and across the U.S. These moves have drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists who argue that rolling back regulations will result in higher emissions and environmental degradation. However, Dierker argues the opposite, stating, “I believe that by 2030, the impact of this administration will be less carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. The simple reason: innovation.”

Pointing to historical context, Dierker notes that while U.S. carbon dioxide emissions grew for a century, they peaked between 2005 and 2007 and have since been declining. He attributes this decrease not to international climate agreements but to technological advancements, particularly hydraulic fracturing and the increased use of natural gas. According to Dierker, “The story of the 21st Century to date has been more efficient energy resources displacing less efficient ones.”

Dierker challenges the notion that economic growth inherently leads to more emissions, noting that between 2000 and 2020, the U.S. population grew by nearly 20%, while annual CO2 emissions fell by 20%. He attributes this to enhanced efficiency and technological progress, emphasizing that “serving this larger population with new power, water, internet, and roadways was more efficient over time, not necessitating greater emissions.”

Dierker also argues that Trump’s focus on deregulation will not lead to increased pollution, as critics suggest. He explains that many businesses have already made capital-intensive investments in clean and efficient technologies that they are unlikely to abandon simply because regulations are removed. He contends, “The technology and assets already in place are clean, efficient, and powerful; they won’t be abandoned because the regulations go away.”

Further, Dierker criticizes prescriptive regulations, which mandate specific technologies or methods, for stifling innovation. He points to the 45Q tax credit, which incentivizes carbon capture technology but fails to encourage more efficient methods, such as processes that decarbonize natural gas by separating hydrogen and solid carbon. He asserts, “One that yields two valuable co-products: clean hydrogen for power and industrial use and solid carbon to serve as a construction material to build and improve American infrastructure.”

Dierker concludes with optimism, suggesting that Trump’s regulatory approach, coupled with innovation, will lead to “greater safety, efficiency, and resilience of our nation’s infrastructure, supply chains, and industry.” He predicts that the U.S. will continue to reduce emissions while enhancing its economic and industrial capacities, ultimately leading to “a cleaner and healthier America.”

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

During a 12-minute video appearance at the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference held in London, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told the audience that “Net zero by 2050 “is a sinister goal.”

That is a bold statement, especially given that it was delivered to an audience sitting in the United Kingdom, where both major political parties that have traditionally governed the country – the Conservative “Tories” and the far-left Labour Party – have spent the past decade pushing their country to meet its net zero goals as if it were a matter of religious faith. Regardless of the obvious negative economic and social consequences that have been heaped upon UK citizens, and equally obvious futility of the entire effort, leaders of both parties have kept the country on this ruinous path.

As Wright went on to point out, net zero by 2050 is “both unachievable by any practical means, but the aggressive pursuit of it…has not delivered any benefits, but it’s delivered tremendous costs.” This is objectively true, the most painful example being the rapid deindustrialization of the formerly strong British economy and the accompanying rapacious condemnation of thousands of acres of arable lands to become home to huge wind and solar installations.

As Wright points out, “no one’s going to make an energy-intensive product in the United Kingdom anymore.” A clear object lesson in that reality came in September when venerable steelmaker Tata Steel shut down the last existing steelmaking plant in the UK.

Climate zealots in both major parties celebrated that event, but we must ask what there really is to celebrate? Sure, the Labour politicos get to virtue signal about the elimination of X tons of carbon dioxide emissions, but in a global sense, that’s meaningless. The UK still needs steel – the only difference now is that the steel that used to be made by highly-paid workers in domestic mills will now be imported steel made by poverty waged workers in Pakistan, China and other mainly Asian countries.

Meanwhile, the emissions created by making the steel in those other countries with lower environmental regulations will be far larger than from steel that used to be made in the UK. As Wright pointed out at the ARC conference, “This is not energy transition. This is lunacy.”

He isn’t wrong.

On Feb. 13, the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) published a report showing that construction of new coal-fired power plants in China reached a ten-year high in 2024. CREA finds that “China approved 66.7 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity in 2024, with approvals picking up in the second half after a slower start to the year.” It all belies the favored narrative on the political left that China is leading the world in converting its power systems to renewables. In reality, the expansion of its coal sector may actually be accelerating again.

That renewed Chinese focus on expanding its coal power fleet is driven in large part by the zealous focus by globalist leaders in the UK and other western countries – Germany is another great example – on deindustrializing their own economies to satisfy their obsession over atmospheric plant food.

The making of steel and other heavy industrial processes requires reliable, affordable power generation that runs 24 hours every day, 7 days every week. Whether politicians like it or not, coal is the fuel that most reliably and consistently meets all those tests.

Thus, if China and other Asian nations are destined to inherit all the heavy industries being killed off by virtue signaling Western nations, they will need many more coal power plants to power them. This really isn’t complicated.

Meanwhile, the UK can no longer manufacture its own steel or myriad other industrial products that are essential to modern human existence. If the Labour government continues its policy of condemning vast swaths of British farmland to house more and more wind and solar sites, the kingdom will soon no longer be able to even feed its people.

All to satisfy this odd religious dogma based on an obsession over plant food. Lunacy, indeed.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.