Energy
COP 29 is immoral

Energy Talking Points
By Alex Epstein
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.
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:
The climate safety denial movement
·Jan 25Read full story
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.
Every “net zero by 2050” myth, refuted
·September 21, 2023Read full story
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.⁴
- Fossil 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.
My Message to Leaders at African Energy Week 2023
·October 17, 2023Read full story - 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.
The lesson of fossil fuel advocates’ failure at COP 28: stop “Arguing to 0,” start “Arguing to 100”
·December 14, 2023Read full story - 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.
- My new book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.
- Speaking and media inquiries
“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.
Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
1
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.
2
3
Energy
If Canada won’t build new pipelines now, will it ever?

Canada must not allow ideological dogma and indecision to squander a rare chance to lock in our energy sovereignty for good
Canada teeters on the edge, battered by a trade war and Trump’s tariff threats from its once-steady southern ally, yet held back by its own indecision. Trump’s 25 percent tariffs have exposed a brutal truth: Canada’s economy, especially its oil exports, is nearly 100 percent dependent on the U.S.
Voices are crying out to lament the regulatory chaos, ideological zeal, and whispers of “peak oil” that stall progress. If Canada won’t build pipelines when its sovereignty and prosperity are at stake, will it ever? The economics are clear, peak oil is a myth, and the only barriers are self-imposed: dogma, tangled rules, and bad thinking.
The infrastructure Canada can command is immense. Four million barrels of crude flow to the U.S. daily, and Trump’s threats have made that number look even bigger.
The Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) is proof—linking Alberta to Asia’s markets, with royalties already filling public coffers.
But it’s a lone success. Energy East and Northern Gateway are buried, killed by delays and poor decisions. Private capital is gun-shy, scarred by TMX’s $34 billion price tag, ballooned by a broken system. Why risk billions when the path is a minefield?
The stakes are higher than ever. Forget the claim that oil demand peaks this year at 102 million barrels daily. Experts see a different horizon: Goldman Sachs predicts growth to 2034, OPEC to 2050, BP to 2035—some forecasts topping 80 million barrels.
Enbridge’s Greg Ebel sees “well north” of 100 million by mid-century, driven by Asia’s demand and the developing world’s hunger for energy. Peak oil is a ghost story, not a reality. Canada sits on the third-largest reserves in the world and could dominate the global market, not just feed one neighbour. Pipelines to every coast—east, west, and north—would unlock that future and secure riches for decades.
So what’s holding us back? Ideology, for starters.
Environmental lobbying and influence wrap resource projects in suffocating red tape—emissions caps and endless assessments that kill progress. Years of environmental studies and “net zero” hurdles that no pipeline can clear are choking off bold ideas.
Quebec’s stance has softened under Trump’s pressure, but problematic ideals still linger that blind leaders to reality. The regulatory mess makes it worse.
Today’s system demands a $1 billion bet upfront—engineering, consultations—before a shovel hits the dirt. Companies like TC Energy have been burned before, and others won’t play unless there’s reform. TMX worked because it was a government rescue, but its cost is a deterrent to others.
Then there’s the mess of bad ideas. Government officials will talk about pipelines one day and then express doubts about them the next, leaving a void of leadership. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien very strongly backed a West-East pipeline at the Liberal Party leadership convention.
New leader Mark Carney supports energy links but will not name pipelines, even though public support for them has surged. Four out of five Canadians back coast-to-coast pipelines—but leaders continue to waver.
If not now—when we’re in a trade war and facing annexation—when? Canada’s future is about the infrastructure it controls, not the excuses it clings to. The wealth is waiting, the demand is there, and the barriers are ours to break. Ditch the dogma, fix the rules, and build. Or remain a nation forever poised to rise but never brave enough to do it.
Energy
Why the EPA is right to challenge the ruinous “endangerment finding”

Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
The EPA just announced it’s challenging the single most destructive regulatory action in US history: the “endangerment finding.”
This bogus “finding” allowed Obama and Biden to ban gas cars, shut down power plants, slow US oil growth, and lock up our limitless natural gas.
- Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natural gas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA’s bogus “endangerment finding.”¹
- In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a “finding” that GHGs “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.²
- Since human beings began harnessing uniquely cost-effective energy from fossil fuels, human health and welfare have increased dramatically everywhere.
Why? Because the benefits of cheap, reliable energy for billions far outweigh any negative side-effects of fossil fuels.³
- Before and since the “endangerment finding,” which is supposedly about reducing climate danger, fossil fuels have on net made us far safer from climate danger by creating incredible climate resilience.
That’s why climate disaster deaths have declined 98% over 100 years!⁴
- In considering whether fossil fuels’ GHGs “endanger” us and thus should be restricted, EPA should have considered
1. Overall benefits of fossil fuels
2. Climate resilience benefits of fossil fuels
3. Both positive and negative climate impacts of GHGsEPA failed on all 3 counts.
- The “endangerment finding” was particularly inane because it concluded that the US restricting US GHG emissions would accomplish anything globally—when in fact all it accomplished was harming us and offshoring industry to China, which now has 300+ new coal plants in the pipeline!⁵
- By falsely claiming that fossil fuels “endanger” human health, welfare, and climate safety when they were—and have continued to be—a net benefit, EPA has justified giving itself totalitarian powers that, if not stopped, will crater the US economy.
- Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed GHG rules that effectively ban all coal plants and new natural gas plants—by requiring them to capture at least 90% of GHGs, which no plant has ever done at all, let alone cost-effectively.
How EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid
·May 22, 20244 reasons EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid:
Read full story - Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed “fuel economy standards” that would prevent more than 50% of Americans from buying a gasoline-powered vehicle after 2032—a complete violation of American freedom.⁶
- Drawing on the bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA and administration as a whole waged a “whole of government” war on fossil fuels that, if not reversed, will crater our entire economy—which has no near-term replacement for fossil fuels.⁷
- The Trump administration, especially EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, will be attacked relentlessly for challenging the bogus “endangerment finding”—but they should be praised for being willing to take on the most destructive regulatory action in American history.
Questions about this article? Ask AlexAI, my chatbot for energy and climate answers:
“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.
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Reality Finally Returns To Energy Industry
-
Business1 day ago
Ontario Premier Doug Ford Apologizes To Americans After Threatening Energy Price Hike For Millions
-
espionage23 hours ago
Why has President Trump not released the JFK, Jeffrey Epstein files?
-
Business1 day ago
USAID reportedly burning, shredding classified documents
-
Alberta23 hours ago
New gas reserves take Canada into global top 10
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Amazon Rainforest Razed To Build Highway For UN Climate Summit
-
Health22 hours ago
Flu Vaccine Exposed: The Shocking NIH Discovery They Don’t Want You to Know
-
Bjorn Lomborg2 days ago
Despite what activists say, the planet is not on fire