Economy
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
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.
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 Scientific American – COP27 Summit Yields ‘Historic Win’ for Climate Reparations but Falls Short on Emissions Reductions
Phys.org – COP29 climate finance deal ‘must cover loss and damage,’ experts urge
COP29 official website – Fund for responding to Loss and Damage ready to accept contributions
2 Global population was about 8.02 billion in 2023.
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
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Has the time come for America to seriously reassess its participation in and support for the United Nations (U.N.)?
It’s a question that some prominent people are asking this week after the increasingly woke and essentially useless globalist body attempted to sneak a global carbon tax in through the back door while no one was looking.
Except someone was looking, as it turns out. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who chairs the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is part of the majority on both the Senate Judiciary and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, said in an X post Thursday evening that this latest bit of anti-American action “warrants our withdrawal from the UN.”
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his own X post on the matter on Wednesday that the Trump administration “will not allow the UN to tax American citizens and companies. Under the leadership of POTUS (President Donald Trump), the U.S. will be a hard NO. We call on other nations to stand alongside the United States in defense of our citizens and sovereignty.”
On Friday afternoon, Mr. Rubio took to X again to announce the news that efforts by himself and others in the Trump administration succeeded in killing an effort to move the tax forward during a meeting in London. However, the proposal is not fully dead – a final vote on it was simply delayed for a year.
The issue at hand stems from an attempt by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – an agency of the U.N. – to impose net-zero rules on fuels used for seaborne shipping operations. The Trump administration estimates the imposition of the new requirements will increase the cost of shipping goods by about 10%, thus creating yet another round of inflation hitting the poorest citizens the hardest thanks to the globalist obsession with the amount of plant food – carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere.
Known as the IMO Net-Zero Framework, the proposal claims it would effectively “zero out” emissions from the shipping industry by 2050.
The potential implications if the U.N. ultimately succeeds in implementing its own global carbon tax are obvious. If this unelected, unaccountable globalist body can levy a carbon tax on Americans, a concept that America’s own elected officials have steadfastly rejected across the terms of the last five U.S. presidents, what would then prevent it from imposing other kinds of taxes on the world to support its ideological goals?
President Trump’s opposition to exactly this kind of international intrusion into America’s domestic policy choices is the reason why he has twice won the presidency, each time de-committing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords.
It has become increasingly obvious in recent years that the central goal of the global climate alarm movement is to dramatically raise the cost of all kinds of energy in order to force the masses to live smaller, more restricted lives and make their behavior easier for authoritarian governments to control. This camel’s nose under the tent move by the U.N. to sneak a global carbon tax into reality is just the latest in a long parade of examples that serve as proof points for that thesis.
At some point, U.S. officials must seriously reassess the value proposition in continuing to spend billions of dollars each year supporting and hosting a globalist organization whose every action seems designed to inflict damage on our country and its people. Now would be a good time to do that, in fact.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
A United Nations (UN) proposal for a global carbon tax, which threatened to raise consumer costs, was tabled on Friday following pressure from the Trump administration.
Members of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body based in London, met this week to vote on a “Net-Zero Framework,” which would have imposed steep penalties on ship emissions. A majority of countries at the agency voted on Friday to postpone the decision for a year after the Trump administration pushed back and threatened retaliation against states supporting the measure.
“Common sense prevailed. The Trump Administration will not stand for the UN or any organization forcing American taxpayers to foot the bill for their environmental pet projects,” a senior State Department official told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The proposed IMO Net-Zero Framework, aimed at achieving global shipping emissions neutrality by 2050, would have imposed taxes of $100 to $380 per ton of CO2 on ships that failed to meet targets. If the global fleet fell even 10% short of the targets, costs could soar to $20 to $30 billion by 2030 and exceed $300 billion by 2035, by some estimates.
The Trump administration has warned the plan could raise global shipping costs by as much as 10%, forcing higher prices for American consumers.
“The collapse of the UN-backed shipping emissions deal is not the disaster portrayed by climate activists — it’s a victory for sovereignty over what amounted to taxation without representation,” Anthony Watts, Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute, told the DCNF. “Shipping may account for 3% of global emissions, but it moves 90% of global trade; taxing it in the name of ‘net zero’ would have punished consumers and developing nations alike while enriching bureaucrats and consultants in Geneva and New York.”
President Donald Trump personally weighed in against the measure.
“The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping, and will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form. We will not tolerate increased prices on American Consumers OR, the creation of a Green New Scam Bureaucracy to spend YOUR money on their Green dreams,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform Thursday. “Stand with the United States, and vote NO in London tomorrow!”
The Trump administration had threatened that member states backing the measures could face a range of repercussions, including probes into anti-competitive practices, visa restrictions on maritime crews, commercial and financial penalties, increased port fees, and sanctions targeting officials promoting climate policies.
“Better than merely not signing a UN climate treaty is promising to punish countries that do sign. The result is no treaty. Thank you, President Trump,” Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and former Trump EPA transition team advisor, told the DCNF.
Frank Lasee, president of Truth in Energy and Climate, said the president’s stance helped protect consumers from “neocolonial mandates that enrich China at our expense.”
“This global carbon tax isn’t climate action; it’s economic sabotage,” Lasee told the DCNF. “Trump’s masterstroke preserves innovation, low taxes, and freedom from globalist overreach — ensuring our future remains bright without new well-funded UN mischief.”
Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet
Enbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline
Oil Sands are the Costco of world energy – dependable and you know exactly where to find it
Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships
Colorado gave over 500 people assisted suicide drugs solely for eating disorders in 2024
Indigenous Communities Support Pipelines, Why No One Talks About That
Finance Committee Recommendation To Revoke Charitable Status For Religion Short Sighted And Destructive
-
Agriculture1 day agoIs the CFIA a Rogue Agency or Just Taking Orders from a Rogue Federal Government?
-
Automotive2 days ago$15 Billion, Zero Assurances: Stellantis Abandons Brampton as Trudeau-Era Green Deal Collapses
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Blocks UN’s Back Door Carbon Tax
-
Business1 day agoJudges are Remaking Constitutional Law, Not Applying it – and Canadians’ Property Rights are Part of the Collateral Damage
-
Red Deer1 day agoYour last minute election prep: Common Sense Red Deer talks to the candidates
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Admin Blows Up UN ‘Global Green New Scam’ Tax Push, Forcing Pullback
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTrump urges Putin, Zelenskyy to make a ‘deal’
-
espionage1 day ago“Suitcase of Cash” and Secret Meeting Deepen Britain’s Beijing Espionage Crisis