COP 29 is immoral
COP 29 seeks net-zero, which would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives
COP 29 seeks net-zero—rapidly eliminating fossil fuels—in the name of protecting us from climate danger.
In reality, net-zero would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives.
Good people should condemn COP and embrace energy freedom.
The COP 29 climate conference has a consistent theme: previous COPs have done an okay job of restricting fossil fuels in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but this one needs to eliminate fossil fuel use far faster so as to reach net-zero by 2050.
This is 180° wrong.COP 29’s goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to reach net-zero is deadly because:
1. Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate along with improving every other aspect of life
2. Even barely implementing COP’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.
Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate.
The justification of COP 29’s net-zero agenda is that fossil fuel use is causing an escalating “climate crisis.”
But if we look at the full effects of fossil fuels on climate danger, we find that overall fossil fuels have dramatically reduced climate danger.Myth: Climate danger is higher than ever because of fossil fuels' CO2 emissions.
Truth: We have a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths due to our enormous fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities: heating and cooling, infrastructure-building, irrigation, crop transport.1
Myth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 is an “existential threat” that will soon cause global catastrophe and then apocalypse.
Truth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 levels will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.For the full story on how fossil fuels overall make us far safer from climate and will continue to do so, read this:
Even barely implementing COP 29’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.
While COP 28 leaders bemoan how slow their restriction of fossil fuels in pursuit of net-zero has been, even “slow” restriction has caused a global energy crisis.
Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.
Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn’t warn us of.Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:
US: frequent power shortages after shutting down fossil fuel power plants.EU: deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting their domestic fossil fuel industry.
Poor nations: can't afford fuel due to global restrictions.2
If just restricting the growth of fossil fuels in a world that needs far more energy is catastrophic, what would it mean to reduce CO2 emissions by the 50% many “climate emergency” advocates want by 2030 and the 100% they want by 2050?
Global misery and premature death.
COP 29’s net-zero agenda harms poor nations most of all.
The net-zero movement led by COP is particularly dangerous to Africa and other poor regions.
Consider: 1/3 of the world uses wood and animal dung for heating and cooking. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.
Only fossil fuels can provide the energy they need to develop.3
Every prosperous country has developed using fossil fuels.
No poor country has been able to develop to the point of prosperity without massive fossil fuel use.
Development requires energy, and fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective and scalable source of energy.4Fossil fuels are so uniquely good at providing low-cost, reliable energy for developing nations that even nations with little or no fossil fuel resources have used fossil fuels to develop and prosper. E.g. South Korea (83% fossil fuels), Japan (85% fossil fuels), Singapore (99% fossil fuels).5
The obvious path for African development and prosperity is to use fossil fuel whenever it’s the most cost-effective option, which is most of the time, and certainly to responsibly produce the significant fossil fuel resources that exist in Africa.
Yet COP tells Africa to forgo fossil fuels.COP 29 is fundamentally immoral because its goal of “net zero by 2050” would deprive billions of the energy they need to prosper.
Good people who care about energy and human flourishing should condemn COP and net-zero can champion energy freedom instead.
The path forward: reject net-zero and embrace energy freedom.
The path to global prosperity and increasing climate safety is energy freedom: allowing us to use all forms of energy so we are prosperous, resilient to climate danger, and in the long-term innovate new, truly cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels.
Rejecting net-zero and embracing energy freedom means scrapping the Paris Agreement, whose pursuit of net-zero is committing virtually all nations, including the world’s poorest, to rejecting the fossil fuels they need to prosper.
While many at COP are saying that a US withdrawal from Paris by the next administration would be irresponsible, it is the only responsible action to take given that Paris commits us to banning most of the fossil fuels that we and our allies need.
Rejecting net-zero, including the Paris Agreement, and embracing energy freedom requires collaboration among pro-freedom countries like the US, developing nations such as African nations, and any reasonable energy companies.
Developing nations, above all African nations, need to reject net-zero and embrace energy freedom: the freedom to produce and use all cost-effective sources of energy—including, essentially, fossil fuels—which means rejecting all net-zero targets. Here’s a blueprint for doing it.
The energy industry and obviously the fossil fuel industry should condemn COP and its net-zero goal. Appalling, ExxonMobil and others are actually calling for the US to stay in the net-zero Paris Agreement!
Here’s why this is both immoral and impractical.Any attendee of COP 29 should thoroughly reject the conference’s “net zero by 2050” goal and instead proudly advocate for energy freedom and climate safety through climate mastery.
If they do that, they have a real chance at stopping the conference from ruining the world.
Popular links
EnergyTalkingPoints.com: Hundreds of concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.
AlexAI: Instant answers to your questions on energy, environmental, and climate issues.
My new book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
UC San Diego - The Keeling Curve
For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%--from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).
Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.
Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.
Several good talking points in here, thank you sir. But I was somewhat disappointed that you didn't provide a list of accomplishments of the previous 28 conferences. Yes, you said they have done an "okay job" reducing fossil usage. Have they?
The purpose of the Conference of the Parties is to limit greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change; essentially, to tackle climate change on a global scale. The first COP conference was held in 1995, a mere 29 years ago. Since then, global fossil fuel consumption has gone up nearly 60 percent. Of that, coal is up 75 percent, oil up 38 percent, and gas up 90 percent. Global emissions, since 1995, have risen 60 percent. It is also interesting to note that during those same 29 years, global life expectancy rose from 65 to 71 years.
Given the global statistics, I would say the COP is not doing their job!
In a recent report, Department of Homeland Security stated quite clearly that there is a low probability of global catastrophic or existential risk in the coming decade or until the end of the 21st century. The projected trajectories of warming in the next three decades are relatively similar despite disparate assumptions about rates of GHG emissions and feedback loops. Warming on the order of 2 to 3 degrees C are expected. We’ve had 1.3 degrees of that warming so far.
Mr. Podesta, the remainder of the US contingent, and other members of the party would do well to pause their crusade against fossil fuels to re-examine the climate question in light of these findings. Far better use of their time, expenditures, and private-jet emissions would occur if they asked how can we improve our methods of burning fossil fuels and accelerating nuclear deployment in ways that minimize effects to climate while maximizing our benefits to the lives that climate supports?
Environmentalists have long been crying for sustainability. Is it sustainable to base our livelihoods on the least energy dense resources available (wind and solar)? There are measures available to economically reduce emissions without reducing our access to reliable and affordable energy. How can we better apply these measures to reduce our climate risk and extend life expectancy?
To say we are going to “tackle” climate change is an exercise in bullshit-rhetoric. Humans will never, ever stop the climate from changing. Since man first walked upright, he has been struggling to control his climate – he moved from the plains, to caves, to mud and thatch huts, eventually to the homes we have today with their controlled heating and cooling and fresh water and sanitation. Humans may alter its trajectory, but we are far better at adapting to climate change as it occurs and living within climate’s offerings. COP needs to figure out how we can do all of that better.
I began by asking for a list of accomplishments of the COP. Would it fill a Post-it note?