By Ed Crooks of Wood Mackenzie

“Personnel is policy.” That aphorism about the realities of US presidential government was coined by Scot Faulkner, who was director of personnel for Ronald Reagan’s triumphant election campaign in 1980. What he meant was that, while US presidents can do almost anything, they can’t do everything. The day-to-day business of the administration is carried on by appointed officials. And if presidents want to make real progress towards their policy objectives, they need to make sure that their officials are as committed to those goals as they are.

That is why President-elect Donald Trump’s first two picks to be his senior energy officials are particularly significant. There is still a great deal of uncertainty around exactly how energy policy will play out in his second administration. But the announcements he has made give a clear sense of the direction he wants to set and the objectives he wants to achieve during his four-year term.

Last week, President-elect Trump named Chris Wright, the chief executive of oilfield services company Liberty Energy, to be his energy secretary, and Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, to be the interior secretary and head of a new National Energy Council at the White House.

The common thread in the thinking on energy expressed by both Wright and Burgum is that they want to boost production of all types of energy, including fossil fuels. They do not deny that human-caused climate change is a real threat that needs to be addressed. But they argue that there are other priorities for policy that are more important and more urgent, and that oil and gas can continue to play the central role in the global energy system into the indefinite future.

If they get to take the reins of energy policy-making under the Trump administration, they will undoubtedly aim to help the oil and gas industry in every way possible. But several low-carbon sectors could also benefit, or at least not be hit as hard as they might have feared.

Meet Chris Wright and Governor Doug Burgum

Announcing their nominations, President-elect Trump said that Wright and Burgum would be working on cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investment and focusing on innovation, with the aim of boosting energy production to cut prices and “win the AI arms race with China (and others)”.

Chris Wright has become one of the highest-profile CEOs in the industry thanks to his tireless advocacy for American energy in general, and oil and gas in particular. He has made his case in a variety of public forums, including YouTube videos and in a 180-page report titled ‘Bettering human lives’.

That report makes its argument in 10 key points, which include: “Global demand for oil, natural gas, and coal are all at record levels and rising — no energy transition has begun” and “Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero [emissions] 2050.”

Wright summarises his position on climate change like this:

“Climate change is a real and global challenge that we should and can address. However, representing it as the most urgent threat to humanity today displaces concerns about more pressing threats of malnutrition, access to clean water, air pollution, endemic diseases, and human rights, among others.”

Tackling those other more pressing problems, he argues, would be helped by the strongest possible growth in US oil and gas production. This would displace supplies from authoritarian regimes and geopolitical rivals of the US and substitute for dirtier fuels, including coal and traditional biomass.

On policy, Wright warns that the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which extended and expanded tax credits for a range of low-carbon energy technologies, “appears poised to drive the U.S. electricity grid along the European path [to] higher prices and more grid stability problems”.

He is not opposed to all forms of low-carbon energy, but says the world needs a massive increase in research and innovation, as opposed to subsidies for existing technologies. His company has worked on low-carbon energy sources, including advanced geothermal, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and sodium-ion batteries. The world needs more and better energy, which means contributions from “all viable energy technologies,” Wright says.

One of the peculiarities of the US system of government is that the energy secretary – the job that Chris Wright is being proposed for – does not have primary responsibility for many of the decisions most relevant to the energy industry. A US energy secretary does have responsibility for overseeing energy policy, but the most vital part of the job relates to nuclear weapons. The secretary is tasked with “maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent” for the US, and reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Many of the key decisions related to energy, such as oil and gas leasing programmes, lie with the Department of the Interior. So the proposal that Governor Burgum of North Dakota should head that department, as well as the new White House energy council, is also highly significant for the industry.

Governor Burgum, like Wright, has a record of recognising the need to act on climate change while also aiming to boost oil and gas production. In 2021, he set a goal of reaching net zero emissions for North Dakota – described as “carbon neutral status” – by 2030. That is a much more ambitious schedule than California’s – the Golden State is aiming for net zero by 2045.

Another crucial difference is that Governor Burgum has envisaged his state reaching net zero largely through carbon capture and storage (CCS). As he has pointed out, North Dakota hit the “geologic jackpot” in its potential for sub-surface storage of carbon dioxide. Its estimated capacity of 250 billion tons could take all of the US’s carbon dioxide emissions from energy for almost 50 years.

In a sign of North Dakota’s enthusiasm for CCS, the state’s Public Service Commission last week voted unanimously to approve the route permit for Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed US$8 billion carbon dioxide pipeline system, which would take captured emissions from ethanol plants for storage.

But despite his support for decarbonisation, Governor Burgum has also been a strong critic of the Biden administration’s energy policies. He signed up to a joint statement with other Republican governors in June, arguing that the president’s “rhetorical and regulatory hostility towards traditional energy” was holding back US oil and gas production.

One sector that could be particularly favoured under the new administration is gas-fired power generation. President-elect Trump said in the statement announcing Governor Burgum’s nomination that he wanted to “undo the damage done by the Democrats to our Nation’s Electrical Grid, by dramatically increasing baseload power”. That will certainly mean acting on his pledge to scrap President Biden’s emissions rules for power plants, which could potentially have ended up forcing gas-fired generation to shut down. But he could go further. A national version of the Texas system that subsidises gas-fired power plants is possible.

Wood Mackenzie view

Some of the critical issues for energy policy under the second Trump administration remain highly uncertain. The future of the IRA tax credits for low-carbon energy is likely to be decided by a tight vote in the House of Representatives, given the Republicans’ slender majority there. Energy industry leaders – including Darren Woods, chief executive of ExxonMobil, who last week attended the COP29 climate talks in Azerbaijan – have urged President-elect Trump not to sweep away all of President Biden’s energy policies.

“I don’t think the stops and starts are the right thing for businesses,” Woods told the Wall Street Journal. “It is extremely inefficient.”

But while the prospect of a sharp reversal in policy is a concern, the appointment of two senior officials who have been champions for investment in energy, with a brief to continue that work in the federal government, will be welcomed by many in the industry.

The power and renewables sector is threatened by the potential curtailment or elimination of the production and investment tax credits (PTC and ITC) for wind, solar and storage. But it could benefit from other changes under a Trump administration, including permitting reform and regulatory changes that could make it easier to add new transmission capacity.

Wood Mackenzie’s “severe downside scenario” represents a worst-case outlook, with total installations of wind, solar and storage over the next decade about 30% lower than in our previous base case forecast. But for that to play out, several factors have to turn against the industry, including not only a phase-out of the PTC and ITC, but also increased permitting challenges. If the new administration lives up to its rhetoric about supporting investment in all kinds of energy, permitting and regulation could become easier, not harder.

However, the new administration’s plans raise important questions about the balance of supply and demand for energy, and especially for natural gas. President-elect Trump has promised to end immediately the “pause” on approvals for new LNG export projects, which will add to demand for US gas over time. A surge in gas-fired power generation, which the new administration sees as important for supplying new data centres for AI, would add additional demand pressure.

On the supply side, Wood Mackenzie analysts think government regulations and access to acreage are not the most important issues. US oil and gas production is determined principally by commodity prices, cash flows and corporate capital allocation strategies. The federal government can take actions that will help, including expediting investment in new pipeline infrastructure. But it cannot guarantee that additional production will flow.

Those conditions, with stronger demand but a limited supply response, would be bullish for energy prices. Although President-elect Trump’s stated goal is to drive down energy costs for American consumers, it is possible that his policies could have the opposite effect.

COP29 makes little progress in its first week

The election victory for President-elect Trump, who plans to take the US out of the Paris climate agreement for a second time, cast a shadow over the first week of the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan. There were more signs of disharmony among the assembled nations, with Argentina withdrawing its official delegation, and France’s environment minister choosing not to attend after a diplomatic spat with the hosts Azerbaijan.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, negotiators are attempting to secure a global agreement on climate finance, which could pledge more than US$1 trillion a year in investment, loans and grants to low- and middle-income countries to support emissions reductions and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. So far, there appears to have been little movement on agreeing a deal.

The conference began with an announcement of significant progress towards finalising the rules for international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris agreement. But on that issue, too, much work remains before the market can start working as intended.

One group of leading figures in international climate policy has argued that the entire process of COP negotiations is “no longer fit for purpose”.

If you’re trying to implement green energy solutions in Asia, chances are you’re going to need to rely on China one way or another. 

Southeast Asia’s demand for renewable energy is rising, driven by tech manufacturing and data center growth, according to Nikkei. Solarvest, the region’s leading renewable energy provider, plans to capitalize on this boom by increasing imports from China, according to a local manager.

That manager told Nikkei: “We aim to invest more in the next couple of years. Buying equipment and components from Chinese suppliers, who have mastered the supply chain and solar tech, gives us the best opportunity to generate green energy with a price that is low enough to compete against fossil fuels.”

Through its Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing has extended its influence over power infrastructure in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and Pakistan. However, the U.S. has criticized China for subsidizing manufacturers and underpricing goods, leading to tariffs and trade barriers.

The Nikkei report says that despite U.S. opposition, China maintains an edge with economies of scale and growing climate urgency. Solar energy, seen as the most accessible renewable source, attracted $500 billion in investment in 2024, surpassing all other energy types, according to the International Energy Agency.

Offshore wind projects take over eight years to complete, while solar plants can be built in under two, making solar a faster choice for companies transitioning to renewables, industry leaders told Nikkei.

This urgency is especially pronounced in emerging Asian economies like Malaysia and Thailand, which rely on fossil fuels but aim to attract tech giants like Apple and Google, committed to 100% renewable energy through the RE100 initiative.

China dominates the global solar energy market, housing leading players like Longi Green Energy, Tongwei, and Jinko Solar, as well as the top three inverter makers: Huawei, Sungrow, and Ginlong.

Despite efforts by the U.S. and India to localize production, China is projected to maintain over 80% of global photovoltaic manufacturing capacity by 2030, with its solar products costing 20-30% less than competitors, according to the IEA.

Analysts attribute China’s edge to its economic scale, advanced technology, and cost efficiency. Even as countries impose trade barriers to curb dependence on Chinese products, demand for China’s affordable solar solutions remains strong globally.

Companies like Foxconn highlight that Chinese solar energy rivals fossil fuels in cost, driving its adoption worldwide, particularly in markets eager to expand renewable energy capacity.

China’s dominance in solar wasn’t always guaranteed. In the 2000s, Japanese and Taiwanese firms led the photovoltaic industry, but China’s massive scale and government subsidies allowed it to outpace competitors.

Now, China controls over 90% of the solar supply chain, from polysilicon production to module manufacturing.

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Suicides increased among U.S. military service members in 2023, continuing a gradual rise seen over the past decade, according to the Department of Defense’s annual report on suicide in the military.

A total of 523 service members—including active, reserve, and National Guard—died by suicide in 2023, up from 493 in 2022, according to the Pentagon’s report, while the total force rate of suicide deaths per 100,000 service members was 9 percent higher than in 2022, at 25.6 per 100,000.

The Pentagon’s report highlighted an upward trend since 2011 among active-duty military members: A total of 363 active-duty service members died by suicide in 2023, up from 331 in 2022 and 328 in 2021.

The report noted that military suicide rates have been comparable to those seen across the wider U.S. population between 2011 and 2022.

The findings “urgently demonstrate the need for the Department to redouble its work in the complex fields of suicide prevention and postvention. One loss to suicide is one too many,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a Nov. 14 statement.

The defense secretary said the Pentagon is focused on long-term, sustained initiatives to prevent suicide and is taking a “comprehensive” and “integrated” approach to increasing protective factors and decreasing the risk of suicide among service members.

“Our efforts aim to meet the military community where they are in their personal and professional lives—whether through bolstering financial readiness and support, building healthy relationships, improving mental health, or supporting them through life transitions,” Austin said.

The defense secretary noted that there has been a decrease from previous years in the number of military family members (spouses and dependent children combined) who died by suicide.

A total of 146 military family members died by suicide in 2022 compared to 165 in 2021, and 200 in 2020, according to the report. Numbers for 2023 were unavailable due to the time it takes to process data for this category.

The report noted that the complexity of suicidal behavior means it is difficult to identify a single root cause that might explain the trend.

Pentagon Working to Combat Suicide Rates

Overall, in 2023, 158 deaths were attributed to suicide among active-duty Army personnel, according to the report. Another 72 were reported among active-duty members of the Air Force, 70 among Navy members, and 61 among Marine Corps members, while two suicides were reported among members of the Space Force.

Among reserve members, 44 suicides were reported in the Army, 10 in the Marine Corps, eight in the Navy, and seven in the Air Force.

Similar to previous years, the majority of the deaths (around 60 percent) were among males under the age of 30, the Pentagon report found.

Firearms were the primary method of suicide deaths for service members and their families, according to the Pentagon, which noted the importance of promoting awareness regarding safely securing and storing firearms.

Speaking on Thursday, Austin touted the work the Pentagon is doing to tackle rising suicide rates among military personnel, including establishing the Suicide Prevention Response and Independent Review Committee in 2022 to conduct a review of clinical and nonclinical suicide prevention and response programs.

That review has resulted in more than 100 recommendations so far, Austin said.

In 2025, the Department of Defense also plans to invest $250 million in suicide prevention, Austin and other officials noted.

“We are dedicated to fighting for our Service members by fostering supportive team cultures and tackling the stigma of asking for help and other barriers to care,” Austin said.

“We continue working hard to improve the delivery of mental health care, bolster suicide prevention training, and educate people about lethal means safety. There’s still much more work to do, and we won’t let up.”

If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis, considering suicide, or engaging in substance abuse, dial or text the U.S. Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 to speak with a counselor. If you’re in the UK, call the Samaritans at 116123.

Authored by Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov via Headline USA,

It was recently revealed that President-elect Donald Trump surpassed one of the most famous pop stars, Taylor Swift, in Twitter followers, proving that Americans like him more.

“BREAKING: Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) has surpassed Taylor Swift in followers to become the 8th most-followed account on [Twitter],” popular conservative commentator @alx reported.

BREAKING: Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) has surpassed Taylor Swift in followers to become the 8th most followed account on 𝕏 pic.twitter.com/3fzL11JIqh

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) November 18, 2024

As of Nov. 18, Trump had 94.8 million followers, and Swift had 94.7 million followers.

“OVERTAKEN,” conservative commentator and senior editor at Human Events Jack Posobeic wrote in response to the recent news.

OVERTAKEN https://t.co/qXLU7yScWr

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 18, 2024

Like almost any other Hollywood celebrity, Swift publicly expressed her far-left political beliefs, specifically her opposition to Trump.

Even though Swift refused to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, she supported Joe Biden for president while he was still in the race, which resulted in Trump attacking her on social media.

“I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 

“There’s no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden, the worst and most corrupt President in the History of our Country, and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money.”

Trump, however, stated that Swift is “unusually beautiful” even though she is a leftist.

Swift endorsed Kamala Harris in her Instagram post after Democrats orchestrated a coup against Biden and replaced him with Harris.

“I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos. I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades,” she wrote.

However, Swift’s endorsement didn’t affect Americans, with only 6% saying that they were now more likely to vote for Harris.

According to Gallup’s latest polling, support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent and support for an “assault weapons” ban has cratered to just 52 percent.

Gun bans were a constant call from both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the last four years.

President Biden often combined the call with dubious factual, legal, and historical arguments.

Jonathan Turley previously wrote about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limits posed by the Second Amendment and controlling case law. While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, the current case law makes such bans very difficult to defend.

In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms.

Yet, the 2024 campaign showed a belated recognition that the Administration has failed to galvanize public opinion in support of gun limits and bans.

Harris came under fire during the campaign when she suddenly seemed to embrace one of the very guns that she previously vilified as it became clear that she was too far left from much of the country.

Years ago, Turley wrote that the rise in gun ownership in the United States, including among minority gun owners, was strikingly out of sync with the Democratic talking point.

In 2019, support for an assault weapons ban stood at 61%. It is now barely at a majority.

The drop in support for a handgun ban is notable in that only 33 percent of Democrats support such a ban.

The rise in gun ownership and the drop in polling raise another issue where Democratic candidates seem to be speaking to an increasingly empty room. The gun ownership rates are a problem for the party because most political issues do not involve a large personal investment by citizens. When someone becomes a gun owner, they spend hundreds of dollars on the weapon, ammunition, and other costs. The ban campaigns become more of a personal and financial issue for them.

Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans.

The question is whether the party is ready to pivot on this and other issues — and whether it can given its political base.

That 33 percent is the core voting block in primaries even as the rest of the country moves toward the center of the political spectrum.