North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum criticized the European Union’s adoption of Green New Deal–style energy policies while arguing that past U.S. energy strategies were built on assumptions that later proved inaccurate.

Burgum’s remarks focused on how earlier energy policy discussions in the United States centered on concerns about dwindling domestic energy supplies, particularly during the late 2000s when debates over “peak oil” and fossil fuel limits shaped policy decisions.

“Whose all of our energy policies, when Obama took on in took over in 2008 it was all because all the energy policies were built around, we've reached peak oil, and it's in written decline,” Burgum said.

According to Burgum, those assumptions led policymakers to believe the United States would need to move away from traditional energy sources such as coal and natural gas.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

“You know, we're going to stop using coal as a fuel,” Burgum said.

“There is no more natural gas in this country.”

He argued that these beliefs encouraged reliance on outside sources of energy.

“We've got it. We've got to start buying our you know, you know, intermittent, unreliable, foreign sources energy for us to be able to do this,” Burgum said.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Burgum also criticized the role of long-term climate models in shaping global energy policy.

He said government decisions increasingly relied on projections generated by computer models attempting to forecast conditions many decades into the future.

“And the number one, you know, the number one, top order bit was, was a belief in a computer models that predicted, somehow was certainly what was going to happen in the year 2100 you know, one degree of climate change,” Burgum said.

Drawing on his experience in the technology sector prior to entering politics, Burgum said predictive models often have significant limitations.

“I mean, there's, I spent decades in in the software business, and I didn't see models that were accurate for predicting next corners earnings,” Burgum said.

“I didn't see models that were, you know, that would protect how fast innovation would occur.”

Burgum argued that projections and forecasts should be viewed as estimates rather than definitive outcomes.

“And so you spend your whole life being around like, yeah, here's a projection, but we know the projection is going to have variability,” Burgum said.

He said the reliance on computer projections became especially influential in shaping international energy policies.

“And then somehow the thing that was going to determine energy policy for every country in the world, and then, particularly in places like the EU, was going to be some computer models,” Burgum said.

The governor also criticized how critics of those models are sometimes labeled in public debate.

“And then, if you challenge that, but somehow you were a client climate denier,” Burgum said.

“You were a science denier.”

Burgum argued that scientific inquiry requires debate and continued testing of ideas.

“Science is about asking questions,” Burgum said.

'

He said new discoveries and technological innovation should also play a role in shaping future energy policy.

“And then when you have new information, and you have new innovation,” Burgum said.

WATCH:

Burgum’s comments come amid continuing international debates about climate policy, energy independence, and the role of fossil fuels in the global economy.

Governments across Europe have implemented policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and transitioning to renewable energy sources, while critics argue those policies could affect energy reliability and economic stability.

In the United States, the discussion has similarly focused on balancing environmental goals with domestic energy production and technological innovation.

Burgum’s remarks reflect ongoing political debates about how governments should weigh long-term climate projections against economic considerations and evolving energy technologies.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.