A recent <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08751-3__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!2LALwW8yKFqPNNaA4xXEG09tMo1LJOZHia3Jgm7nU6ZE2ryt10HNdFNWxTyNT2EeduoQsiTJDKD96FyneHnhD7cM$">study</a> published in the academic journal Nature has been making headlines, claiming that if it were not for major oil and gas companies producing energy between 1991 and 2020, the world would be $28 trillion richer.
Study authors Christopher Callahan, a Stanford University postdoctoral scientist, and Justin Mankin, a Dartmouth College geography professor, authored the study, which was never peer-reviewed and uses a laughably absurd methodology developed by activists whose goal is to do the pseudo-science grunt work for climate change lawsuits against energy producers.
Single events <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!2LALwW8yKFqPNNaA4xXEG09tMo1LJOZHia3Jgm7nU6ZE2ryt10HNdFNWxTyNT2EeduoQsiTJDKD96FyneCyPoFvO$">cannot</a> be attributed to climate change. Nevertheless, the study goes far beyond the ridiculous in its attempt not only to pin blame solely on individual energy producers but to attach a specific dollar amount to each company. Using dubious assumptions and their unsound “end-to-end” methodology, the authors cooked up an implausible correlation between individual companies and singular weather events alleged to have been caused or exacerbated by global warming. The bogus conclusions are then broken up into specific price tags and assigned to various energy producers.
Chevron, for example, is accused of being responsible for “heat-related losses” totaling $3.6 trillion from 1991 to 2020. Damages assigned to ExxonMobil amounted to $1.91 trillion during the same period, while the tally for Saudi Aramco came to $2.05 trillion. Together, the study blames the world’s energy producers for $28 trillion in damages. It would be an understatement to say that neither the study, nor its underlying assumptions, nor its conclusions should be accorded any credibility.
Given the elaborate contortions necessary to arrive at the study’s obviously preconceived conclusions, one might wonder what the motivation was to concoct it in the first place. The authors leave an enormous clue in their acknowledgements, in which they lavish <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08751-3*Ack1__;Iw!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!2LALwW8yKFqPNNaA4xXEG09tMo1LJOZHia3Jgm7nU6ZE2ryt10HNdFNWxTyNT2EeduoQsiTJDKD96FyneHYs_i-c$">praise</a> upon individuals associated with the notorious law firm Sher Edling LLP for their help with the study. Sher Edling was created for the sole purpose of waging lawfare with the intent to financially destroy energy companies. While Sher Edling has worked with states and municipalities in initiating dozens of lawsuits attempting to set climate policy in courtrooms, none to date have been successful.
If just one of the firm’s lawsuits succeeds, it is expected to take up to a 30% chunk of an award estimated to be in the billions of dollars. Because the firm is <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024.10.07-Sher-Edling-Memo.pdf__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!2LALwW8yKFqPNNaA4xXEG09tMo1LJOZHia3Jgm7nU6ZE2ryt10HNdFNWxTyNT2EeduoQsiTJDKD96FyneMLb-kWH$">bankrolled</a> by millions of dollars in dark money funneled through far-Left organizations, its attacks are limitless — and so is its ability to buy studies supporting its conclusions and the fat payday they covet. Sher Edling has acknowledged commissioning made-for-litigation studies before. Named partner Vic Sher described working with scientist-for-hire Richard Heede during a 2017 talk at UCLA. That study, much like the new Nature research, purports to connect major energy providers with specific emissions activity.
A more honest study would have acknowledged the truly beneficial role that energy plays in our economy and everyday lives. We depend on fossil fuel energy for everything from the quality of our lives to our national security. It is so dependable that we rarely even consider that everything we eat, wear, buy, or sell depends on energy. It’s there to take us places and to cool and heat our homes. Smart devices, paint, asphalt, and plastic containers are just a few objects in our daily lives made from petroleum. The study would be more credible if it concluded the truth: that fossil fuels have contributed trillions of dollars in value and made human flourishing possible.
Several legacy news outlets — many of which <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/media-provide-no-scrutiny-study-claiming-oil-companies-made-world-28__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!2LALwW8yKFqPNNaA4xXEG09tMo1LJOZHia3Jgm7nU6ZE2ryt10HNdFNWxTyNT2EeduoQsiTJDKD96FyneDRJ0tH9$">accept funds from anti-fossil fuel advocacy organizations</a> to write about global warming — reported on the Nature study while failing to note its utterly discrediting connection to Sher Edling. As we move into the warmer summer weather, we can expect more such studies and uncritical news stories.
Studies lacking basic integrity like the one published in Nature are why President Trump’s recent executive order “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/restoring-gold-standard-science/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!2LALwW8yKFqPNNaA4xXEG09tMo1LJOZHia3Jgm7nU6ZE2ryt10HNdFNWxTyNT2EeduoQsiTJDKD96FyneCG8TS0c$">Restoring Gold Standard Science</a>” is so timely and important. That standard holds that reproducibility, rigor, and unbiased peer review must be maintained. It demands that federal decisions be informed by only the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available. Absolutely nothing about the Nature study meets the gold standard of science.
* * *
The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute, a trade organization that unapologetically champions free markets and American energy. Previously, he served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>

Senate Lawmakers Return To Capitol Hill After The Weekend

Made-For-Court Climate Study Completely Fails Science Gold Standard

Climate Change

Court

ExxonMobil

Global Warming

Ivy League

Oil and Gas

Oil companies

Opinion

In the debate over energy policy, the term &#8220;all of the above&#8221; has been heralded as a balanced, pragmatic strategy. But in reality, this approach is little more than a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) framework for energy — one that prioritizes political considerations over performance and efficiency. Just as DEI hiring initiatives emphasize inclusivity over merit-based selection, the &#8220;all of the above&#8221; energy policy forces taxpayers and ratepayers to subsidize inefficient energy sources under the guise of fairness and diversity in energy production.
This misguided philosophy has led to the proliferation of heavily subsidized and unreliable power generation, such as wind and solar, which fail to deliver power when it is needed most. These sources are not chosen based on their ability to provide cheap, reliable energy but rather on their alignment with politically driven mandates and green ideology. Despite the rhetoric of energy independence, the reality is that the expansion of these energy sources has increased our dependence on China for critical materials while simultaneously driving up electricity prices for American consumers. Ironically, while the U.S. is shackling its energy sector with expensive and inefficient mandates, China continues to dominate global energy markets by producing affordable power — largely fueled by coal.
The issue is not just limited to electricity generation. Biofuels, another beneficiary of the &#8220;all of the above&#8221; approach, serve as a prime example of government inefficiency. These fuels make gasoline and diesel more expensive, harm engine performance, and require massive amounts of water to produce. Rather than being an environmentally friendly alternative, biofuels epitomize waste — consuming resources and taxpayer dollars for minimal benefit.
Proponents of tax credits and subsidies argue that they create &#8220;good-paying jobs,&#8221; but this justification rings hollow. The same could be said of nearly any government-funded initiative, including federal bureaucracies that are now being exposed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for being inefficient and wasteful. Of course, by this logic, one could also argue that funding for male circumcision programs in Mozambique created &#8220;good-paying jobs&#8221; as well — just not ones that benefit the American workforce. President Trump highlighted this as an example of what he considers &#8220;appalling waste&#8221; in government spending, and yet the same defenders of bloated federal budgets will insist that all taxpayer-funded jobs are inherently valuable. Just because an industry is artificially propped up by government incentives does not mean it is economically viable. True job creation comes from industries that thrive on their own merits — not those that rely on perpetual government handouts.
A recent letter from members of Congress underscores this flawed thinking. It claims that tax credits are essential for energy affordability and national security, yet it ignores the fact that these subsidies distort markets and drive up costs. The argument that these tax incentives were promised for a ten-year period, and therefore should remain untouched, is nothing more than an attempt to lock in bad policy. If a program is wasteful and inefficient, it should be ended — regardless of previous commitments to corporate beneficiaries. The idea that repealing subsidies would cause an energy crisis is a scare tactic used to protect special interests rather than consumers.
True energy dominance does not come from a politically constructed mix of energy sources dictated by government planners. It comes from an energy sector that is free to compete based on cost, efficiency, and reliability. The &#8220;all of the above&#8221; approach is not a strategy — it is a crutch for failing energy policies that depend on taxpayer support to survive. If we are serious about unleashing American energy, we must reject this DEI-style approach and allow the best energy sources to rise based on merit — not mandates.
* * *
The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute, a trade organization that unapologetically champions free markets and American energy. Previously, he served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Oil Set For Biggest Weekly Gain Since Early 2023 On Mideast Risk

Why ‘All Of The Above’ Energy Policies Fail

Why 'All Of The Above' Energy Policies Fail

China

Coal

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Electricity

Energy

Solar Power

The Kamala Harris Campaign recently published an image of her with the text, “we are not going back.” Will Democrats seek to replace her or Tim Walz from the ticket as their numbers start to tank? All it may take is another trip to the grocery store or a fill-up at the pump for reality to set back in for Americans excited about her candidacy. Most Americans would certainly like to “go back” to affordable gas prices, groceries, housing, and electricity.
Regardless of the ticket, any Democratic nominee would likely continue down the same policy path that has wrecked the American economy and — perhaps most importantly — dismantled our energy dominance.
Why does energy matter when everyone is talking about inflation, the border, and global conflicts? Because everything we do depends on access to affordable, reliable energy—and that means our next president’s energy policy will shape the future of America and the world. The Democrats’ vision for expensive, scarce, and government-controlled energy, dependent on the whims of the weather, is as reliable as Obamacare is affordable, and it would spell disaster for our nation.
Kamala Harris’ record on energy is clear. She endorsed California’s cap-and-trade carbon tax, co-sponsored the Green New Deal, and cast the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which is, as <a href="https://x.com/dgelles/status/1635301875967983616" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one journalist</a> aptly put it, “the first major climate legislation…EVER!” These are the same policies that have driven California’s energy prices to astronomical levels and have left tens of thousands of people in the dark — literally.
In California last year, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/why-californians-have-some-of-the-highest-power-bills-in-the-u-s-a831b60e" target="_blank" rel="noopener">215,000 people</a> had their power disconnected for inability to pay, and over 40,000 of those households still had not had their services restored by year’s end. For those individuals, residential lease and mortgage terms are violated and homeowners insurance policies are canceled because requirements to keep utilities connected aren’t being met. These 40,000 people are at the highest risk of homelessness, all because they couldn’t afford to pay their energy bills.
This is not just a California story — though the numbers are much higher there, it’s a nationwide crisis unfolding under the Democrats’ watch. In California last year, nearly 27% of Californians missed payments on utility bills — compared to 16% nationwide, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey. The previous year saw <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/utility-power-shutoffs-4-2-million/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5 million Americans</a> receive disconnect notices from their utility companies. The pattern is clear: the Democrats’ energy policies, embraced in California, are making it harder for everyday Americans to keep their lights on.
Under the Trump administration, Americans enjoyed the benefits of a robust energy sector. The United States became a net energy exporter for the first time in decades, and <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/10/f79/Natural%20Gas%20Benefits%20Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">American households saved an average of $2,500 a year</a> on energy costs alone. Today, under the Biden-Harris administration, American families are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-29/u-s-households-face-5-200-inflation-tax-this-year-chart" target="_blank" rel="noopener">paying $5,200 more per year,</a> thanks to the Biden-Harris policies that have attacked the energy industry and levied higher costs on everything.
Harris’s stance on fracking is particularly troubling for energy-producing states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming as significant portions of their energy are produced on federal lands. In 2019, she unequivocally stated, “There is no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. And, starting with what we can do on day one around public lands, right!” In New Mexico, nearly two-thirds of energy production occurs on federal lands, generating over $6 billion in tax revenue. A Harris administration would be a direct threat to this critical industry, leaving millions unemployed and our nation more dependent on foreign oil.
<h4><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a></h4>
The consequences would be equally dire in states like Pennsylvania, and Ohio where auto production is a key economic driver. A Harris/Walz regime, with its bureaucratic deep state, would continue to unleash attacks against the energy and auto manufactures in these states. Chinese EV battery maker Gotion has already set up shop in Michigan, claiming U.S. federal and state tax subsidies while also receiving subsidies from the Chinese Communist Party. This is the kind of pro-China double-dealing that is resulting in, as President Trump predicted, a “bloodbath” for the American auto industry.
No wonder President Trump said he was “thrilled” with Tim Walz as Harris’ the VP pick. Not content with a centrist candidate to balance the ticket, Harris instead chose another hard leftist, verging on communist. The Democrats’ regime is no friend to American energy producers or the American automotive industry. And, as Harris has made clear, &#8220;we are not going back.&#8221;
In the end, the choice is clear. America needs leadership that will protect our energy independence, lower costs for American families, and strengthen our economy. The alternative is more of the same disastrous policies that have plagued California and could result in the United States being known as Kamalafornia — where energy is expensive, scarce, and unreliable, and where the American dream is slipping further out of reach for millions.
* * *
The Honorable Jason Isaac, a former Texas state legislator, is CEO of the American Energy Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Gas Stations As Oil Hits $85 for First Time Since October

‘We Are Not Going Back’: Why Kamalanomics Spells Disaster For American Energy

'We Are Not Going Back': Why Kamalanomics Spells Disaster For American Energy

2024 Election

California

Democrats

Economy

Fracking

Green New Deal

Inflation Reduction Act

Kamala Harris

At the two nights of the most recent Democratic Party presidential debates, 20 candidates warned in ever more alarming terms about the supposedly looming apocalypse.
“Literally the survival of humanity on this planet in civilization is in the hands of the next president,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/democratic-debate-july-31-2019/h_b8177bf26dc2fca01f55fc8710304039">said</a> on the second night. “And we have to have a leader who will do what is necessary to save us.”
Though not every candidate endorsed the so-called Green New Deal, most called climate change an existential threat and echoed the sensational headlines that we have <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/">12 years</a>, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/beto-orourke-we-only-have-10-years-let-on-earth-if-we-dont-address-climate-change">10 years</a>, or even <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/">five years</a> to stave off the End of Days. Unfortunately for the American people, none chose to lay aside the hyperbole of climate change alarmism and use his/her platform to drive our national discourse toward the truth.
And so far, no one clamoring about this supposed apocalypse has proposed a serious plan of action.
Our national conversation about climate change remains fraught and unproductive, with both sides talking past each other rather than to each other.
The missing link is a foundational understanding of how the United States actually produces our energy. If politicians really want to switch to renewable power, it can’t be accomplished without a concrete, coherent plan to replace the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40013">80% of our energy</a> that comes from fossil fuels — natural gas, oil, and coal.
Like it or not, fossil fuels represent the most reliable, affordable, and abundant energy sources we have. Access to these energy resources has led to the most dramatic improvements in the human condition in recorded history. After the Industrial Revolution made electricity widespread and accessible, average global life expectancy and GDP per capita <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2016/03/28/why-green-energy-means-no-energy/#7a58741c17dc">increased dramatically</a>. People are healthier, freer, more prosperous, better educated, and more comfortable than ever before.
Meanwhile, as our energy use has increased, so has our environmental quality. The United States is a world leader in clean air, with major <a href="https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/11/27165514/2018-11-RR-US-Leads-the-World-in-Clean-Air-ACEE-White.pdf?__hstc=123760149.a1ffad69b2a014eec1ac8a23eed19c36.1553016528347.1561662255945.1561734439873.241&amp;__hssc=123760149.14.1561734439873&amp;__hsfp=1784292781">pollutants falling nearly 75% since 1970</a>.
These are benefits we take for granted — benefits not every country enjoys, even in the 21st century — and are too often overlooked in policy conversations about energy and the environment.
At current levels of technology, wind and solar energy <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-size.html">require far too much land</a>, battery storage, and backup power to become a primary energy source. It would take 27 times the acreage to replace the nation’s coal plants with solar power and more than 100 times the acreage for wind, not counting immense storage requirements — also destroying more wildlife and overwhelmingly increasing our physical footprint on the earth.
Even after tens of <a href="https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf">billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies</a>, renewable energy remains impractical.
Just ask Germany, where renewable power mandates have caused <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#2e65d8f1dc66">electricity prices to rise over 50%</a> — and where coal plants are subsidized to provide power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. A recent study revealed that <a href="https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/papers/2019/wp-19-09.html">higher electricity prices leads to more wintertime deaths</a>, as low-income and senior citizens are forced to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table.
What’s more, even switching to 100% renewable energy by 2030, as plans like the Green New Deal call for, would only reduce global temperatures by <a href="http://magicc.org/">0.04 degrees in 2100</a>. That’s according to data models used by the United Nations, traditionally one of the leading voices of climate change alarmism.
The Democratic presidential debates over the last two nights addressed none of these real, tangible concerns. Instead, candidates kowtowed to the political allure of climate change fear-mongering. South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg cried that we’re nearing the “horizon of catastrophe,” despite the fact that <a href="https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967/10156615395793968/?type=3&amp;theater">climate-related deaths have declined 97%</a> in the past century.
Meanwhile, the voters were left hanging, faced with the false choice between an unlikely doomsday and unnecessarily higher taxes, electricity and fuel costs, and overall cost of living — all for limited, if any, environmental benefit.
Instead of parroting the popular but unfounded climate change doomsday narrative, our prospective leaders should empower Americans with the clear path forward that prioritizes human flourishing. As history has shown in the United States and around the world, affordable, reliable, abundant energy is critical to that flourishing.
Our economy, public health, and quality of life depend on it.
The Honorable Jason Isaac is Senior Manager and Distinguished Fellow of <a href="https://lifepowered.org">Life:Powered</a>, a national initiative to raise America’s energy IQ. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/isaacfortexas">@ISAACforTexas</a>.

Menu

Jason Isaac

Made-For-Court Climate Study Completely Fails Science Gold Standard

Why ‘All Of The Above’ Energy Policies Fail

‘We Are Not Going Back’: Why Kamalanomics Spells Disaster For American Energy

ISAAC: Latest Democratic Debate Furthers Climate Hyperbole