Chris Wright, an oil industry executive who has expressed skepticism about climate science, has criticized the global pledge to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, calling it a “sinister goal” that he claims is both “unachievable” and economically burdensome.

Wright made these remarks during a virtual address to a conference organized by the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) in London, during a session moderated by Australian conservative commentator Chris Uhlmann.

The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship’s advisory board includes numerous conservative figures from around the world, including former Australian Prime Ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott. Other notable members include current and former politicians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Amanda Stoker, Andrew Hastie, and John Anderson.

The 2025 conference’s lineup features several prominent figures, including former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, former Treasurer Peter Costello, Warren Mundine, Murdoch media personalities Peta Credlin and Greg Sheridan, as well as Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg. The gathering has drawn attention for bringing together voices skeptical of climate change policies and renewable energy initiatives.

Wright’s presentation aligned with this perspective. His remarks drew applause when he declared, ‘Net zero 2050 is a sinister goal – a terrible goal.’ He continued, ‘It’s both unachievable by any practical means but the aggressive pursuit of it – and you’re sitting in a country that has aggressively pursued this goal – has not delivered any benefits, but it’s delivered tremendous costs.’

He characterised the energy transition as ‘lunacy that is impoverishing your own citizens in a delusion that this is somehow going to make the world a better place.’

During his speech, Wright minimised concerns about extreme weather and suggested that climate action initiatives were designed to ‘grow government power’ and ‘shrink human freedom.’

The discussion between Wright and Uhlmann lasted approximately 13 minutes, with critics noting that the exchange contained numerous contested claims and potentially misleading statements.