While some people and organizations remain concerned about President-elect Trump and his support of fossil fuels, there are those who are concerned about the incoming POTUS not pushing for even more use of fossil fuels.
Some individuals and special-interest groups argue that getting off an "addiction" to fossil fuels is part of a moral responsibility to protect the environment. They say that man's burning of fossil fuels is bad for people's health and contributes to what is referred to as "global warming" or "climate change."
"I'm concerned about ... Trump not being sufficiently pro-fossil fuels – or at least not sufficiently able to get that agenda moving forward." That's Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. "It's really remarkable that in this country we're only concerned about the side effects of using energy, but we're not concerned about the benefits of using energy and the harms of not having lots of cheap, plentiful, reliable energy."
Supporters of renewable energy platforms, such as wind and solar, say those alternatives involve sources – wind and sunlight – that don't have to be paid for. However, a common knock against renewables is that they aren't as cheap and efficient as fossil fuels.
"Fossil fuels are the only source of energy that can scale to billions of people, allowing them to have cheap, plentiful, reliable energy," says Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress. "So when people talk about fossil fuels as an 'addiction,' that's like saying that food is an addiction – and even if there are issues with fossil fuels, you should be really afraid of losing the benefits you get from fossil fuels."
And while some people want to move forward with energy sources not including coal and natural gas, Epstein says the entire conversation about energy is backwards.
"It devalues energy and it only focuses on potential downsides from energy," he explains, "and that shows a real bias that I think also exaggerates those downsides."