Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.

Published

2 months ago

12 minute read

From Energy Talking Points

The injustice of climate reparations

COP 29 is calling for over $1 trillion in annual climate reparations

  • A major theme of COP 29 is that the world should set a “New Collective Quantified Goal” wherein successful nations pay poor nations over $1 trillion a year to 1) make up for climate-related harm and 2) build them new “green energy” economies. In other words, climate reparations.¹
  • What would $1 trillion a year in climate reparations mean for you and your family?Assuming the money was paid equally by households considered high income (>$50 per day), your household would have to pay more than $5,000 a year in climate reparations taxes!²
  • Climate reparations are based on two false assumptions:1. Free, wealthy countries, through their fossil fuel use, have made the world worse for poor countries.

    2. The poor world’s main problem is dealing with climate change, which wealth transfers will help them with.

But free, fossil-fueled countries have made life better for poor countries

  • Free, wealthy countries, through their fossil fuel use, have not made the world worse for poor countries—they have made it far, far better.Observe what has happened to global life expectancies and income as fossil fuel use has risen. Life has gotten much better for everyone.³
  • The wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has improved life worldwide because by using fossil fuel energy to be incredibly productive, we have 1) made all kinds of goods cheaper and 2) been able to engage in life-saving aid, particularly in the realms of food, medicine, and sanitation.
  • Without the historic use of fossil fuels by the wealthy world, there would be no super-productive agriculture to feed 8 billion humans, no satellite-based weather warning systems, etc. Most of the individuals in poor countries would not even be alive today.

Free, fossil-fueled countries have made the poor safer from climate

  • The wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has been particularly beneficial in the realm of climate.Over the last 100 years, the death rate from climate-related disasters plummeted by 98% globally.

    A big reason is millions of lives saved from drought via fossil-fueled crop transport.⁴
  • The “climate reparations” movement ignores the fact that the wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has made life better, including safer from climate, in the poor world.This allows it to pretend that the poor world’s main problem is dealing with rising CO2 levels.

The poor world’s problem is poverty, not rising CO2 levels

  • The poor world’s main problem is not rising CO2 levels, it is poverty—which is caused by lack of freedom, including the crucial freedom to use fossil fuels.Poverty makes everything worse, including the world’s massive natural climate danger and any danger from more CO2.
  • While it’s not true that the wealthy world has increased climate danger in the poor world—we have reduced it—it is true that the poor world is more endangered by climate than the wealthy world is.The solution is for the poor to get rich. Which requires freedom and fossil fuels.⁵

Escaping poverty requires freedom and fossil fuels

  • Every nation that has risen out of poverty has done so via pro-freedom policies—specifically, economic freedom. 

    That’s how resource-poor places like Singapore and Taiwan became prosperous. Resource-rich places like Congo have struggled due to lack of economic freedom.

  • Even China, which is unfree in many ways (including insufficient protections against pollution) dramatically increased its standard of living via economic freedom—particularly in the realm of industrial development where it is now in many ways much freer than the US and Europe.
  • A crucial freedom involved in rising prosperity has been the freedom to use fossil fuels.Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective source of energy, providing energy that’s low-cost, reliable, versatile, and scalable to billions of people in thousands of places.⁶
  • Time and again nations have increased their prosperity, including their safety from climate, via economic freedom and fossil fuels.Observe the 7X increase in fossil fuel use in China and India over the past 4 decades, which enabled them to industrialize and prosper.⁷
  • For the world’s poorest people to be more prosperous and safer from climate, they need more freedom and more fossil fuels.The “climate reparations” movement seeks to deny them both.
  • The wealthy world should communicate to the poor world that economic freedom is the path to prosperity, and encourage the poor world to reform its cultural and political institutions to embrace economic freedom—including fossil fuel freedom.Our leaders are doing the opposite.

Climate reparations pay off dictators to take away fossil fuel freedom

  • Instead of promoting economic freedom, including fossil fuel freedom, wealthy climate reparations advocates like Antonio Guterres are offering to entrench anti-freedom regimes by paying off their dictators and bureaucrats to eliminate fossil fuel freedom.This is disgusting.⁸
  • The biggest victim of “climate reparations” will be the world’s poorest countries, whose dictators will be paid off to prevent the fossil fuel freedom that has allowed not just the US and Europe but also China and India to dramatically increase their prosperity.
  • The biggest beneficiary of “climate reparations” will be China, which is already emitting more CO2 than the US and Europe combined. (Though less per capita.)While we flagellate and cripple ourselves, China will use fossil fuels in its quest to become the world’s superpower.⁹
  • The second biggest beneficiary of “climate reparations” will be corrupt do-gooders who get to add anti-fossil-fuel strings to “reparations” dollars and dictate how it’s spent—which will surely include lots of dollars for unreliable solar panels and wind turbines made in China.

Leaders must reject reparations and champion fossil fuel freedom

  • We need leaders in the US and Europe who proudly:1. Champion the free world’s use of fossil fuels as an enormous good for the world, including its climate safety.

    2. Encourage the poor world to embrace economic freedom and fossil fuels.

    Tell your Representative to do both.

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  Scientific American – COP27 Summit Yields ‘Historic Win’ for Climate Reparations but Falls Short on Emissions Reductions
2  Global population was about 8.02 billion in 2023.

World Bank data

About 7% of world population are considered high income, which translates into about 562 million individuals. Considering 3 people per average household in high income households, this translates into about 187 million households.
Pew Research – Are you in the global middle class? Find out with our income calculator

$1 trillion per annum paid by 187 million households means the average household would pay about $5,300 per year.

3  Maddison Database 2010 at the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen
4  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 in 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.

5  UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates come from World Bank Data.

6  Our World in Data – Energy Production and Consumption
7  BP – Statistical Review of World Energy
8  UN News – ‘Pay up or humanity will pay the price’, Guterres warns at COP29 climate summit
9  Our World in Data – Annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels, by world region
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
DEI / 6 hours ago

RIP DEI?

Daily Caller / 7 hours ago

‘This Is So Disgusting’: Joe Rogan Unloads On Gavin Newsom For ‘Creepy’ Behavior In Front Of Wildfire Wreckage

DEI / 7 hours ago

Biden FBI shut down diversity office before Trump administration could review it

Business

We need our own ‘DOGE’ in 2025 to unleash Canadian economy

Published on January 17, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Canada has a regulation problem. Our economy is over-regulated and the regulatory load is growing. To reverse this trend, we need a deregulation agenda that will cut unnecessary red tape and government bloat, to free up the Canadian economy.

According to the latest “Red Tape” report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, government regulations cost Canadian businesses a staggering $38.8 billion in 2020. Together, businesses spent 731 million hours on regulatory compliance—that’s equal to nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs. Canada’s smallest businesses bear a disproportionately high burden of the cost, paying up to five times more for regulatory compliance per-employee than larger businesses. The smallest businesses pay $7,023 per employee annually to comply with government regulation while larger businesses pay $1,237 per employee.

Of course, the Trudeau government has enacted a vast swath of new regulations on large sectors of Canada’s economy—particularly the energy sector—in a quest to make Canada a “net-zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter by 2050 (which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting emissions with activities such as planting trees).

For example, the government (via Bill C-69) introduced subjective criteria—including the “gender implications” of projects—into the evaluation process of energy projects. It established EV mandates requiring all new cars be electric vehicles by 2035. And the costs of the government’s new “Clean Electricity Regulations,” to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity, remain unknown, although provinces (including Alberta) that rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity will surely be hardest hit.

Meanwhile in the United States, Donald Trump plans to put Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which will act as a presidential advisory commission (not an official government department) for the second Trump administration.

“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” the two wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. “DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited.”

If Musk and Ramaswamy achieve these goals, the U.S. could leap far ahead of Canada in terms of regulatory efficiency, making Canada’s economy even less competitive than it is today.

That would be bad news for Canadians who are already falling behind. Between 2000 and 2023, Canada’s GDP per person (an indicator of incomes and living standards) lagged far behind the average among G7 countries. Business investment is also lagging. Between 2014 and 2021, business investment per worker (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) in Canada decreased by $3,676 (to $14,687) while it increased by $3,418 (to $26,751) per worker in the U.S. And over-regulation is partly to blame.

For 2025, Canada needs a deregulatory agenda similar to DOGE that will allow Canadian workers and businesses to recover and thrive. And we know it can be done. During a deregulatory effort in British Columbia, which included a minister of deregulation appointed by the provincial government in 2001, there was a 37 per cent reduction in regulatory requirements in the province by 2004. The federal government should learn from B.C.’s success at slashing red tape, and reduce the burden of regulation across the entire Canadian economy.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Trudeau’s Tariff Retaliation Plan: Alberta Says “No Thanks”

Published on January 16, 2025

By

The Opposition with Dan Knight
Dan Knight

After years of neglect and exploitation, Alberta refuses to back Trudeau’s countermeasure plan against Trump’s tariffs, exposing the cracks in Canada’s so-called unity.

Let’s take a moment to appreciate Justin Trudeau’s brilliant strategy for handling Trump’s latest stunt: tariffs. Trump, in true Trump fashion, threatens to slap a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, because apparently, Canada is responsible for all of America’s problems—from border security to fentanyl. And Trudeau’s response? A $150 billion countermeasure plan that includes the possibility of crippling Alberta’s energy sector. Genius! Except one small problem: Alberta said, ‘No thanks.’

Why wasn’t Alberta there? Because Premier Danielle Smith isn’t an idiot. Trudeau’s plan includes export levies on Canadian oil, a move that would essentially tell Alberta to torch its own economy to help Trudeau look tough on Trump. Alberta exports $13.3 billion of energy to the U.S. every month, making it the lifeblood of this country’s economy. But sure, let’s just gamble that away because Trudeau needs a distraction from his sinking legacy.

But Alberta’s refusal isn’t just about this plan. It’s about years—years—of Ottawa treating Alberta like the black sheep of Confederation. Remember the Northern Gateway Pipeline? Trudeau killed it. Energy East? Dead, too. Those projects could’ve given Alberta access to global markets. Instead, Trudeau left the province landlocked, dependent on the U.S., and completely vulnerable to economic extortion like this. And now, after all that sabotage, he expects Alberta to ‘unite’ behind his plan? Please.

And don’t even get me started on Bill C-69. They call it the ‘Impact Assessment Act,’ but Albertans know it as the ‘No More Pipelines Bill.’ This masterpiece of legislation basically made it impossible to build anything that moves oil. And just to twist the knife, Trudeau slapped on a carbon tax—because nothing says ‘we care about your economy’ like making it more expensive to run it.

And then there’s Quebec. Oh, Quebec. The province that’s spent years wagging its finger at Alberta, calling its oil sands ‘dirty energy’ and blocking pipeline projects that could’ve helped the whole country. Meanwhile, Quebec gleefully cashes billions in equalization payments, heavily subsidized by Alberta’s oil wealth. That’s right—the same people who call Alberta the bad guy are more than happy to take their money. And now Trudeau wants Alberta to step up and take one for the team? Give me a break.

Danielle Smith saw this nonsense for what it is: exploitation. She flatly refused to sign onto any plan that includes export levies or energy restrictions. And you know what? Good for her. She said, ‘Federal officials are floating the idea of cutting off energy supply to the U.S. and imposing tariffs on Alberta energy. Until these threats cease, Alberta cannot support the federal government’s plan.’ Translation: Alberta is done being Ottawa’s doormat.

Let’s not forget why Alberta is even in this mess. For nine years, Trudeau’s government has treated Alberta like its personal piggy bank, siphoning billions through equalization payments while doing absolutely nothing—zero—to support its economy. When oil prices collapsed and families were struggling, what did Alberta get? Crickets. Trudeau was too busy virtue-signaling to his globalist pals to care. And now, with Trump threatening a 25% tariff that could cripple Alberta’s economy, Trudeau has the audacity to turn around and ask Alberta to make the ultimate sacrifice. You can’t make this stuff up.

And then Danielle Smith does what any rational leader would do—she heads to Mar-a-Lago to defend her province’s interests. And what does Trudeau’s cabinet do? They lose their minds, clutch their pearls, and call her ‘unpatriotic.’ Unpatriotic? Are you kidding me? This is coming from the same government that has spent nearly a decade treating Alberta like the annoying little sibling of Confederation—good enough to bankroll Quebec’s luxurious equalization payments, but not important enough to actually listen to. And now, after years of kicking Alberta to the curb, they expect Smith to roll over, play nice, and ‘work together’? Please.

Doug Ford says, ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ Great soundbite, Doug. But unity doesn’t mean asking one province to carry the load while others reap the rewards. Quebec Premier François Legault says, ‘Nothing’s off the table.’ Of course not—Quebec isn’t paying the price. This isn’t unity; it’s a shakedown.

Here’s the reality: Alberta isn’t at the table because Ottawa hasn’t earned the right to ask them to be. You don’t treat a province like an ATM for nearly a decade and then expect them to roll over when you need a favor. Danielle Smith stood up and said, ‘Enough.’ And frankly, good for her.

So here’s the real question: how long does Ottawa think it can keep exploiting Alberta before the province decides it’s had enough? Because let me tell you, when Alberta’s done, it’s not just the energy sector that’s going to feel it—it’s the entire country.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X