Connect with us

Energy

COP 29 is immoral

Published

5 months ago

11 minute read

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:

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

    Every “net zero by 2050” myth, refuted
    ·
    September 21, 2023
    Read 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.
  • 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.

Share

Popular links

“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.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 2 hours ago

Poilievre will cancel Mark Carney’s new Liberal packaging law and scrap the Liberal plastic ban!

Business / 4 hours ago

Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan Ramp Up Pressure On Google Parent Company To Deal With ‘Censorship’

2025 Federal Election / 6 hours ago

PRC-Linked Disinformation Claims Conservatives Threaten Chinese Diaspora Interests, Take Aim at PM Carney’s Debate Remark

Canadian Energy Centre

First Nations in Manitoba pushing for LNG exports from Hudson’s Bay

Published on April 18, 2025

By

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

NeeStaNan project would use port location selected by Canadian government more than 100 years ago

Building a port on Hudson’s Bay to ship natural resources harvested across Western Canada to the world has been a long-held dream of Canadian politicians, starting with Sir Wilfred Laurier.

Since 1931, a small deepwater port has operated at Churchill, Manitoba, primarily shipping grain but more recently expanding handling of critical minerals and fertilizers.

A group of 11 First Nations in Manitoba plans to build an additional industrial terminal nearby at Port Nelson to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe and potash to Brazil.

Courtesy NeeStaNan

Robyn Lore, a director with project backer NeeStaNan, which is Cree for “all of us,” said it makes more sense to ship Canadian LNG to Europe from an Arctic port than it does to send Canadian natural gas all the way to the U.S. Gulf Coast to be exported as LNG to the same place – which is happening today.

“There is absolutely a business case for sending our LNG directly to European markets rather than sending our natural gas down to the Gulf Coast and having them liquefy it and ship it over,” Lore said. “It’s in Canada’s interest to do this.”

Over 100 years ago, the Port Nelson location at the south end of Hudson’s Bay on the Nelson River was the first to be considered for a Canadian Arctic port.

In 1912, a Port Nelson project was selected to proceed rather than a port at Churchill, about 280 kilometres north.

The Port Nelson site was earmarked by federal government engineers as the most cost-effective location for a terminal to ship Canadian resources overseas.

Construction started but was marred by building challenges due to violent winter storms that beached supply ships and badly damaged the dredge used to deepen the waters around the port.

By 1918, the project was abandoned.

In the 1920s, Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King chose Churchill as the new location for a port on Hudson’s Bay, where it was built and continues to operate today between late July and early November when it is not iced in.

Lore sees using modern technology at Port Nelson including dredging or extending a floating wharf to overcome the challenges that stopped the project from proceeding more than a century ago.

Port Nelson, Manitoba in 1918. Photo courtesy NeeStaNan

He said natural gas could travel to the terminal through a 1,000-kilometre spur line off TC Energy’s Canadian Mainline by using Manitoba Hydro’s existing right of way.

A second option proposes shipping natural gas through Pembina Pipeline’s Alliance system to Regina, where it could be liquefied and shipped by rail to Port Nelson.

The original rail bed to Port Nelson still exists, and about 150 kilometers of track would have to be laid to reach the proposed site, Lore said.

“Our vision is for a rail line that can handle 150-car trains with loads of 120 tonnes per car running at 80 kilometers per hour. That’s doable on the line from Amery to Port Nelson. It makes the economics work for shippers,” said Lore.

Port Nelson could be used around the year because saltwater ice is easier to break through using modern icebreakers than freshwater ice that impacts Churchill between November and May.

Lore, however, is quick to quell the notion NeeStaNan is competing against the existing port.

“We want our project to proceed on its merits and collaborate with other ports for greater efficiency,” he said.

“It makes sense for Manitoba, and it makes sense for Canada, even more than it did for Laurier more than 100 years ago.”

Continue Reading

Energy

Straits of Mackinac Tunnel for Line 5 Pipeline to get “accelerated review”: US Army Corps of Engineers

Published on April 17, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

The Army Corps of Engineers on Tuesday announced an accelerated review of a Michigan pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac following President Donald Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” on day one of his second term.

Enbridge’s Line 5 oil pipeline is among 600 projects to receive an emergency designation following Trump’s January executive order declaring a national energy emergency and expediting reviews of pending energy projects. The action instructed the Army Corps to use emergency authority under the Clean Water Act to speed up pipeline construction.

“An energy supply situation which would result in an unacceptable hazard to life, a significant loss of property, or an immediate, unforeseen, and significant economic hardship,” if not acted upon quickly, the public notice reads.

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a signed executive order as (L-R) U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum look on in the Oval Office of the White House on April 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a signed executive order as (L-R) U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum look on in the Oval Office of the White House on April 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

“Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure,” Calgary-based Enbridge wrote to the DCNF. The company noted that it submitted its permit applications to state and federal regulators five years ago and described the project as “designed to make a safe pipeline safer while also ensuring the continued safe, secure, and affordable delivery of essential energy to the Great Lakes region.”

Army Corps’ Detroit District did not respond to the DCNF’s request for a copy of the notice or for comment.

The pipeline has been active since 1953 and extends for 645 miles across the state of Michigan, according to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy website. Line 5 supplies 65% of the propane needs in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and 55% of the state’s overall propane demand, according to Enbridge.

Environmental organizations, Native American tribes and Democratic leadership have opposed the project due to concern regarding the risk of an oil spill in the Great Lakes. Enbridge and the Army Corps argue that the tunnel is a necessary addition to the long-standing pipeline. (RELATED: ‘Taking Away Local Control’: Whitmer Signs Massive Green Energy Mandate Into Law)

The project has faced legal trouble and permitting delays that have hindered its expansion. Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2019 used a legal opinion by Attorney General Dana Nessel to argue that the law that created the authority to approve the project “because its provisions go beyond the scope of what was disclosed in its title.”

The State of Michigan greenlit the project in 2021 and the Michigan Public Service Commission approved placing the new pipeline segment in 2023.

Trump has championed an American energy production revival, stating throughout his 2024 campaign that he wanted to “drill, baby, drill,” in reference to oil drilling on U.S. soil.

Continue Reading

Trending

X