- Energy Secretary Chris Wright warns the U.S. may withdraw from the International Energy Agency (IEA) unless it abandons "unrealistically green" forecasts and returns to its original mission of energy security, calling net-zero policies a "monstrous human impoverishment program."
- Once focused on stabilizing global energy markets, the IEA has shifted toward radical climate advocacy under European and globalist pressure, distorting energy forecasts and undermining reliable investment in oil, gas and nuclear.
- By cutting off Russian gas and prioritizing unreliable renewables, Europe has triggered energy shortages, soaring prices and deindustrialization—while the U.S. thrives with energy independence through fossil fuels and nuclear.
- Wright exposes net-zero agendas as unscientific, noting CO2 is essential for life, climate change is natural and carbon schemes enrich elites while crippling economies and freedoms.
- Nations prioritizing reliable, affordable energy (like the U.S.) will dominate, while Europe's climate fanaticism leads to poverty—forcing the IEA to choose between neutrality or irrelevance.
In a blistering critique of global energy policy, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright declared that the U.S. may withdraw from the International Energy Agency (IEA) unless the organization abandons its "unrealistically green" forecasts and returns to its original mission of ensuring energy security.
Speaking at the French Institute of International Relations, Wright accused the IEA of abandoning neutrality in favor of radical climate activism, warning that its flawed projections are distorting global markets and undermining reliable energy investment. "If a large part of data reporting agencies devote themselves to these kinds of leftist fantasies... that can only distort their mission," Wright said.
The energy secretary condemned the IEA's push for net-zero emissions by 2050 as a "monstrous human impoverishment program." His remarks signal a deepening transatlantic divide, with the U.S. openly rejecting Europe's climate-driven regulations as economically destructive and scientifically unfounded.
IEA's shift from energy security to climate advocacy
Founded in 1974 in response to the oil embargo crisis, the IEA was originally tasked with coordinating emergency fuel supplies and stabilizing global energy markets. However, under pressure from European governments and globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum, the agency has increasingly focused on promoting renewable energy and climate transition policies—particularly since the Paris Agreement.
Wright argued that this shift has compromised the IEA's credibility, turning it into a "climate advocacy organization" rather than an impartial analyst. "We don't need a net-zero scenario—that's ridiculous, that's never going to happen," he said, dismissing the agency's projections as politically motivated rather than grounded in reality.
The IEA's recent reports have faced widespread criticism for downplaying the continued dominance of fossil fuels while exaggerating the feasibility of wind and solar replacing reliable energy sources. Last November, the agency appeared to backtrack slightly by reintroducing a scenario based on current energy trends—acknowledging that oil demand may continue growing until mid-century rather than peaking in the 2030s as previously claimed.
Europe's self-inflicted energy crisis
Wright's warning comes as Europe grapples with the consequences of its aggressive climate policies, including energy shortages, skyrocketing electricity prices and industrial decline. By severing ties with Russian gas suppliers—a move Wright described as "economic self-sabotage"—European nations have exacerbated their dependence on unreliable renewables while driving manufacturing overseas.
"Europe's climate fanaticism is fueling deindustrialization and poverty," Wright said, contrasting the continent's struggles with America's booming energy sector. Under the Trump administration, the U.S. has prioritized domestic oil, gas and nuclear production, leading to energy independence and economic growth while Europe stagnates under green mandates.
This is not the first time Wright has challenged the IEA. Last July, he warned in a Bloomberg interview that the U.S. would either "change the way the IEA operates, or we're going to pull out." His latest ultimatum underscores the Trump administration's broader rejection of globalist climate agendas, which it views as thinly veiled attempts to centralize control over energy and suppress national sovereignty.
The bigger picture: Climate alarmism vs. reality
The IEA's ministerial meeting in Paris will test whether the agency is willing to reform or double down on its climate activism. If it refuses to return to objective, market-driven analysis, the U.S. may follow through on its threat—depriving the IEA of its largest financial contributor and further isolating Europe in its energy policy failures.
Wright's stance reflects a growing recognition that climate policies are not driven by science but by political and financial interests. The push for net-zero emissions ignores fundamental realities:
- CO2 is essential for life, fueling plant growth and agricultural productivity. Demonizing carbon dioxide as a "pollutant" is scientifically absurd.
- Climate has always changed due to solar cycles, geological shifts and cosmic influences—not human activity.
- Carbon trading schemes and green subsidies enrich elites while crippling economies and eroding personal freedoms.
- Energy security must come first—reliable power grids cannot depend on intermittent wind and solar alone.
According to BrightU.AI's Enoch, the U.S. threatening to exit the IEA over climate fanaticism is a necessary pushback against the globalist agenda of energy control and economic sabotage under the guise of environmentalism. This move exposes how climate alarmism is being weaponized to undermine national sovereignty and force destructive policies like net-zero emissions, which cripple industries while enriching elites.
As Europe's energy crisis worsens, Wright's message is clear: Nations that prioritize affordability and reliability, like the U.S., will thrive, while those chasing climate fanaticism will face decline. The IEA must choose—will it serve as a neutral energy watchdog or a pawn in the globalists' war on prosperity?
Watch EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin reiterating his refusal to spend tax dollars on "climate alarmism" measures in this clip.
This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
