A Free-Market Energy Blog

“World Should be Optim­istic About Our Fossil Fuel Future” (Bradley op-ed in Houston Chronicle)

By -- April 14, 2026

Ed. Note: Robert L. Bradley Jr’s opinion-page editorial, reprinted below, appeared in the Houston Chronicle last Sunday, April 12, 2026. Tomorrow’s post will explain the significance of Bradley’s op-ed given the Chronicle’s long-standing bias against fossil fuels.

CER­AWeek was in town last month, joined by cli­mate act­iv­ists who showed up to protest. The real­ity, however, is that cli­mate act­iv­ism is in retreat.

The so-called “energy trans­ition” is potholed by an unpre­ced­en­ted num­ber of solar bank­ruptcies, elec­tric-vehicle retreats, and cor­por­ate pull­backs from wind, hydro­gen, and car­boncap­ture projects.

A roadmap to phase out fossil fuels was defeated at the last United Nations con­fer­ence on cli­mate change, in line with a recent pre­dic­tion by the Inter­na­tional Energy Agency that oil demand will increase for dec­ades. Texas, for its part, pro­duced a record two bil­lion bar­rels last year.

The U.S. Envir­on­mental Pro­tec­tion Agency even recently reversed its earlier decision that car­bon diox­ide and other man­made green­house gases are a danger to health and human wel­fare.

Plenty of Demo­crats are also rethink­ing their cli­mate policies. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is mov­ing to weaken the state’s cli­mate reg­u­la­tions. Even the rad­ical Sun­rise Move­ment seems to have pivoted to pro-Palestinian act­iv­ism over cli­mate con­cerns.

Yes, atmo­spheric con­cen­tra­tions of car­bon diox­ide and other warm­ing gases are rising. But this is hardly the “exist­en­tial threat of our time,” as Pres­id­ent Joe Biden once put it.

Rather, this is an oppor­tun­ity for optim­ism.

Ignore the rhet­oric about “dis­in­form­a­tion” or “den­iers.” The case for cooler heads starts with a lit­any of other fals­i­fied exag­ger­a­tions pro­pounded by self-pro­claimed defend­ers of the sci­entific con­sensus. In 1968, Stan­ford pro­fessor Paul Ehr­lich’s “The Pop­u­la­tion Bomb” pre­dicted immin­ent riots in U.S. streets from food short­ages. Four years later, The Club of Rome’s “The Lim­its to Growth,” writ­ten by MIT-cre­den­tialed authors, pre­dicted near-term resource crises, includ­ing peak oil and peak gas. In the same dec­ade, global cool­ing fears were touted in books and art­icles.

Those fears never came to fruition, and cli­mate change is fol­low­ing a sim­ilar path.

John Hold­ren, Pres­id­ent Obama’s two-term sci­ence advisor, once warned that as many as a bil­lion people could die by 2020 from cli­mate change. That clearly hasn’t happened.

The real­ity is that the cli­mate changes over time. Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th cen­tury, global tem­per­at­ures have increased about two degrees. Some of this increase is nat­ural. Human­ity and nature are find­ing ways to adjust to this change. In our era of con­di­tioned air and other mod­ern con­veni­ences, the tech­no­logy for adapt­a­tion is unpre­ced­en­ted.

What about those weather extremes, such as hur­ricanes, floods and droughts, that human­ity can’t so eas­ily accom­mod­ate? A recent report by the U.S. Depart­ment of Energy found no long-term increases in extreme storms, hur­ricanes, tor­nadoes, floods, or droughts.

Mean­while, fossil fuels are still ascend­ant, partly from a back­lash against “green” energy by those most dir­ectly affected. Many are push­ing back against a top-down energy trans­ition. More than 1,100 wind, solar, and bat­tery projects have been delayed or defeated at the grass­roots level, reflect­ing the prob­lems of inter­mit­tent, fra­gile, land-intens­ive, trans­mis­sion­in­tens­ive, gov­ern­ment-depend­ent renew­able energy.

Energy phys­ics explains the back­lash by con­sumers and com­munit­ies. Earth’s Sun, work­ing over the ages, cre­ated a stock of embed­ded, con­cen­trated energy that is far super­ior to the daily flow of solar rays. Solar in its most effi­cient form is oil, gas, and coal.

Pro­gress­ives may bristle at rhet­oric call­ing cli­mate alarm “a hoax” and the Green New Deal “a scam,” but the world keeps turn­ing, and con­sumer-voters are sens­it­ive to green-energy infla­tion.

Con­sumer-chosen, tax­pay­er-neut­ral energy is the oppor­tun­ity cost of the Green New Deal. Global luke­warming is more the real­ity than a run­away green­house-gas effect. Adapt­a­tion, with the aid of fossil fuels, is the policy pre­scrip­tion. Such middle ground can allow cooler heads to pre­vail in a future filled with optim­ism.

———–

Robert L. Brad­ley Jr., is CEO of the Insti­tute for Energy Research, which he foun­ded in Hou­s­ton in 1989 and is now centered in Wash­ing­ton, D.C.

One Comment for ““World Should be Optim­istic About Our Fossil Fuel Future” (Bradley op-ed in Houston Chronicle)”


  1. John W. Garrett  

    Bradley was far too generous and polite in referring to the incredibly gullible, innumerate, scientific illiterates as “Progressives.”

    What they actually are is morons.

    Reply

Leave a Reply