COP28 should be the last COP

From Energy Talking Points

COPs are immoral because they deprive billions of the energy they need to prosper. They should be replaced by energy freedom conferences.

Myth: UN COP climate conferences have been a force for good, but COP 28 must lead to far more “climate action.”

Truth: These conferences are immoral because they deprive billions of the energy they need to prosper.

They should be replaced by energy freedom conferences.

Introduction

The leadup to the COP 28 climate conference has had 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 restrict fossil fuel use far faster so as to reach net-zero by 2050.
This is 180° wrong.¹
COP 28’s net-zero agenda—i.e., rapid elimination of fossil fuels—is unnecessary, and pursuing it faster would be catastrophic because
1. Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate.
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 28’s net-zero agenda is that fossil fuel use is causing an escalating “climate crisis.”

But if we factor in fossil fuels’ many climate benefits and carefully weigh fossil fuels’ climate side-effects, the opposite is true.

Factoring in fossil fuels’ “climate mastery benefits”
One huge benefit we get from fossil fuels is the ability to master climate danger—e.g., fossil-fueled cooling, heating, irrigation—which can potentially neutralize fossil fuels’ negative climate impacts.
Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: Drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by more than 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.²
Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels’ climate mastery benefits, our designated experts totally fail to do this.
E.g., the UN IPCC’s multi-thousand-page reports totally omit fossil-fueled climate mastery! That’s like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine.
Carefully weighing fossil fuels’ climate side-effects
With rising greenhouse gasses we must be even-handed, considering both negatives (more heatwaves) and positives (fewer cold deaths). And we must be precise, not equating some impact with huge impact.
Even though we obviously need to factor in both negative and positive impacts of rising CO2 with precision, most designated experts ignore big positives (e.g., global greening) while catastrophizing negatives (e.g., Gore portrays 20 feet sea level rise as imminent when extreme UN projections are 3 feet/100years).³
Every report you hear about fossil fuels having made climate more dangerous commits at least one of 2 fallacies: ignoring the enormous climate mastery benefits of fossil fuels or wildly exaggerating negative climate side-effects of fossil fuels. Here’s how the prestigious IPCC does both.⁴
Alex Epstein – The IPCC’s perversion of science
If we do factor in fossil fuels’ enormous climate mastery benefits and carefully weigh their climate side-effects, we find that fossil fuels are a tremendous climate net-positive and will remain so in the future.
Myth: We are more endangered than ever by climate 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.⁵
Myth: Climate-related disaster X shows that fossil fuels are making climate unlivable.
Truth: If we look at trends, not anecdotes, the drastic decline in extreme weather deaths shows that fossil fuels have made our naturally dangerous climate more livable than ever.⁶
Myth: Even if climate-related disaster deaths are down, climate-related damages are way up, pointing to a bankrupting climate future.
Truth: Even though there are many incentives for climate damages to go up—prefs for riskier areas, government bailouts—GDP-adjusted damages are flat.⁷
Myth: Even if we’re safe from climate now, we can expect future emissions to lead to disaster.
Truth: Since today’s unprecedented safety exists after over 100 years of rising CO2, and with ~1° C warming, we should be skeptical that further CO2 rises will somehow overwhelm us.
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.
Myth: Future warming is ominous because heat-related death is already such a catastrophic problem.
Truth: Even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer, far more people still die from cold than heat (even in India)! Near-term warming is expected to decrease temperature-related mortality.⁸
Myth: Future warming is ominous because it will be worst in hot areas.
Truth: The mainstream view in climate science is that more warming will be concentrated in colder places (Northern latitudes) and at colder times (nighttime) and during colder seasons (winter). Good news.⁹
Myth: Future warming will accelerate as CO2 levels rise.
Truth: Mainstream science is unanimous that the “greenhouse effect” is a diminishing effect, with additional CO2 leading to less warning.

Even IPCC’s most extreme, far-fetched scenarios show warming leveling off.¹⁰
Myth: We face catastrophically rapid sea level rises, which will destroy and submerge coastal cities.
Truth: Extreme UN sea level rise projections are just 3 feet in 100 years. Future generations can master that. (We already have 100 million people living below high-tide sea level.)¹¹
Myth: Hurricane intensity is expected to get catastrophically higher as temperatures rise.
Truth: Mainstream estimates say hurricanes will be less frequent and between 1-10% more intense at 2° C warming. This is not at all catastrophic if we continue our fossil-fueled climate mastery.¹²
Myth: Science says that if we hit 1.5 or 2° C warming since the 1800s we face catastrophe followed by apocalypse.
Truth: The 1.5-2° C number is activist fiction. The mastery abilities that have made life far better through 1° C warming will continue to keep us safe.¹³

Even barely implementing the net-zero agenda has been disastrous.

While COP 28 leaders bemoan how slow their restriction of fossil fuel use in pursuit of net-zero has been, even “slow” restriction has caused a global energy crisis. “Aggressive climate action” = global catastrophe.

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 (and some disastrous blackouts) after shutting down fossil fuel power plants. E.g., CA
- EU: deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting domestic fossil fuel industry
- Poor nations: can’t afford fuel due to global restrictions¹⁴
The “net-zero” movement, led by UN COPs, is the root cause of today’s energy crisis because it has restricted
1. fossil fuel investment
2. fossil fuel production
3. fossil fuel transport
This has artificially suppressed fossil fuel supply, leading to high prices and shortages.
Suppressing fossil fuel investment
For fossil fuel energy to remain low-cost requires sufficient investment. But the COP-led net-zero movement has used government and private entities, often under the banner of “ESG,” to punish and suppress it—meaning less fossil fuel supply.¹⁵
Suppressing fossil fuel production
For fossil fuel energy to remain low-cost for billions of people requires that producers be free to produce it all around the world.

The COP-led net-zero movement has opposed it throughout the world, often successfully, increasing prices.¹⁶
Suppressing fossil fuel transport
For fossil fuels to remain low-cost for billions of people we need to be able to easily transport them from where they are produced to where they are used. But the COP-led net-zero movement has opposed transportation around the world.¹⁷
The “net-zero” movement has rationalized its opposition to fossil fuel investment, production, and transport with claims that solar and wind could rapidly replace fossil fuels.
This has obviously not happened. Despite huge solar and wind subsidies fossil fuel demand has increased.
Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective source of energy, providing energy that’s low-cost, reliable, versatile, and scalable to billions of people.
That’s why overall fossil fuel use is growing. E.g., China, despite its “net-zero” pledges, has 300 new coal plants in the pipeline.¹⁸
There was never any reason to expect solar and wind to replace fossil fuels. The world needs far more energy—3 billion people still use less electricity than a US refrigerator—so there’s no reason to expect lower demand for any form of cost-effective energy, let alone ultra-versatile fossil fuels.¹⁹
Despite claims that solar and wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide less than 5% of world energy—only electricity, ⅕ of energy—and, crucially, even that small percentage depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants.²⁰
Solar and wind’s basic problem is unreliability, to the point they can go near zero at any time. Thus they don’t replace reliable power, they parasitize it. This is why they need huge subsidies and why no grid is near 50% solar and wind without parasitism on reliable neighbors.²¹
The popular idea that we can use mostly or only solar and wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it’s absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk’s Megapacks would cost $570 trillion, about 6X global GDP!²²
Scary fact: the “net-zero” movement has caused an energy crisis just by achieving a tiny fraction of its goals. While it has advocated rapidly reducing fossil fuel use, it has only succeeded globally at slowing the growth of fossil fuel use. And even that is catastrophic.
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.
The net-zero movement led by COP is particularly dangerous to Africa and other poor regions.
Consider: ⅓ 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.²³
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.

The reason is that development requires energy, and fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective, including scalable, source of energy.
Africa is the world’s poorest region. Most Africans want rapid development and with it, prosperity.
This is absolutely achievable. But only by using the proven practices every once-poor place has used to develop and prosper.

One such practice is large-scale fossil fuel use.
In recent decades China and India have used large amounts of low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels to rapidly develop.
Since 1980, India’s fossil fuel use has increased by >700% and China’s by >600%.

India’s life expectancy increased by 17 years and China’s by 14!²⁴
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).²⁵
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 forego fossil fuels.
Given that every prosperous place on Earth has depended on and continues to depend on massive fossil fuel use, and that attempts to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind are failing, the push for Africa to adopt net-zero—aka fossil fuel elimination—is a death sentence for African development.

The alternative to the unnecessary and destructive COPs: energy freedom conferences

Instead of focusing on rapidly eliminating fossil fuel use, we should focus on rapidly liberating energy production and use of all kinds of energy via energy freedom policies.

What are “energy freedom policies”?
Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don’t engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.
Energy freedom policies include:
- Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
- Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., decriminalizing nuclear.
Energy freedom policies are more likely to lead to long-term emissions reductions, because they accelerate the rate at which nuclear and other alternatives become globally cost-competitive. (The only moral and practical way to reduce global emissions.)²⁶
Fact: the 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
- Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the “green” movement virtually criminalized it.
- Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
Alternative energy policy has been dominated by the “green energy” movement, which is an outgrowth of the anti-development green movement. This movement is hostile to all development because of development’s impact on nature, and therefore is hostile to every form of cost-effective energy.
COP’ leaders’ enthusiastic support for solar and wind is phony. Just as they oppose fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro for their impact, in practice they oppose the massive mining, construction, and transmission-line-building “green energy” requires.²⁷
The obvious path forward for the world is 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.
We need courageous leaders who will withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

PS Here’s my friend Jusper Machogu’s message to COP.

Related Topics:#AlexEpstein #COP28 #EnergyTalkingPoints

Up Next

Nova Scotia and Feds kill offshore gas for good

Don't Miss

Ottawa’s cap-and-trade plan long on costs, light on environmental benefits

Todayville

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

RFK Jr. Reveals Unforgettable Details About Charlie Kirk in Emotional Tribute

Alberta / 6 hours ago

Break the Fences, Keep the Frontier

Business / 7 hours ago

Carney government’s housing GST rebate doesn’t go far enough

Canadian Energy Centre

Emissions cap will end Canada’s energy superpower dream

Published on September 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Study finds legislation’s massive cost outweighs any environmental benefit

The negative economic impact of Canada’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap will be much larger than previously projected, warns a study by the Center for North American Prosperity and Security (CNAPS).

The report concluded that the cost of the emissions cap far exceeds any benefit from emissions reduction within Canada, and it could push global emissions higher instead of lower.

Based on findings this March by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), CNAPS pegs the cost of the cap to be up to $289,000 per tonne of reduced emissions.

That’s more than 3,600 times the cost of the $80-per-tonne federal carbon tax eliminated this spring.

The proposed cap has already chilled investment as Canada’s policymakers look to “nation-building” projects to strengthen the economy, said lead author Heather Exner-Pirot.

“Why would any proponent invest in Canada with this hanging over it? That’s why no other country is talking about an emissions cap on its energy sector,” said Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Federal policy has also stifled discussion of these issues, she said. Two of the CNAPS study’s co-authors withdrew their names based on legal advice related to the government’s controversial “anti-greenwashing” legislation.

“Legitimate debate should not be stifled in Canada on this or any government policy,” said Exner-Pirot.

“Canadians deserve open public dialogue, especially on policies of this economic magnitude.”

Carbon leakage

To better understand the impact of the cap, CNAPS researchers expanded the PBO’s estimates to reflect impacts beyond Canada’s borders.

“The problem is something called carbon leakage. We know that while some regions have reduced their emissions, other jurisdictions have increased their emissions,” said Exner-Pirot.

“Western Europe, for example, has de-industrialized but emissions in China are [going up like] a hockey stick, so all it’s done is move factories and plants from Europe to China along with the emissions.”

Similarly, the Canadian oil and gas production cut by the cap will be replaced in global markets by other producers, she said. There is no reason to assume capping oil and gas emissions in Canada will affect global demand.

The federal budget office assumed the legislation would reduce emissions by 7.1 million tonnes. CNAPS researchers applied that exclusively to Canada’s oil sands.

Here’s the catch: on average, oil sands crude is only about 1 to 3 percent more carbon-intensive than the average crude oil used globally (with some facilities emitting less than the global average).

So, instead of the cap reducing world emissions by 7.1 million tonnes, the real cut would be only 1 to 3 percent of that total, or about 71,000 to 213,000 tonnes worldwide.

In that case, using the PBO’s estimate of a $20.5 billion cost for the cap in 2032, the price of carbon is equivalent to $96,000 to $289,000 per tonne.

Economic pain with no environmental gain

Exner-Pirot said doing the same math with Canada’s “conventional” or non-oil sands production makes the situation “absurd.”

That’s because Canadian conventional oil and natural gas have lower emissions intensity than global averages. So reducing that production would actually increase global emissions, resulting in an infinite price per tonne of carbon.

“This proposal creates economic pain with no environmental gain,” said Samantha Dagres, spokesperson for the Montreal Economic Institute.

“By capping emissions here, you are signalling to investors that Canada isn’t interested in investment. Production will move to jurisdictions with poorer environmental standards as well as bad records on human rights.”

There’s growing awareness about the importance of the energy sector to Canada’s prosperity, she said.

“The public has shown a real appetite for Canada to become an energy superpower. That’s why a June poll found 73 per cent of Canadians, including 59 per cent in Quebec, support pipelines.”

Industries need Canadian energy

Dennis Darby, CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME), warns the cap threatens Canada’s broader economic interests due to its outsized impact beyond the energy sector.

“Our industries run on Canadian energy. Canada should not unnecessarily hamstring itself relative to our competitors in the rest of the world,” said Darby.

CME represents firms responsible for over 80 per cent of Canada’s manufacturing output and 90 per cent of its exports.

Rather than the cap legislation, the Ottawa-based organization wants the federal government to offer incentives for sectors to reduce their emissions.

“We strongly believe in the carrot approach and see the market pushing our members to get cleaner,” said Darby.

Business

Ontario leaders back East–West corridor linking Alberta energy across the country

Published on September 5, 2025

Todayville

Matthew Slotwinski, CEO of the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership. Photo courtesy SLEP

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Grady Semmens

‘The sooner this gets done, the better’

From his desk in Marathon, Ont., a small community on the north shore of Lake Superior, Mayor Rick Dumas sees the concept of an energy corridor to Western Canada’s oil and gas as a chance to reshape his region’s future.

The Ontario government issued a request for proposals on August 7 for a feasibility study into the idea, which would move energy products from across the Prairies and Northern Ontario to consumers and exporters in the East.

Rick Dumas, Mayor of Marathon, Ontario.

“Projects like the East-West Energy Corridor are exactly what Northwestern Ontario has been calling for — an opportunity to be at the forefront of a nation-building initiative,” said Dumas, who is also president of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, representing the districts of Kenora, Rainy River and Thunder Bay.

“It means new jobs, greater economic opportunity, and a real commitment to building a cleaner, stronger, and more resilient country together.”

The feasibility study will map potential pipeline routes linking Alberta to Southern Ontario’s refining sector and new tidewater ports, including on James Bay, Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes.

It will also assess the construction or expansion of a refinery, examine Indigenous equity opportunities, and even explore the creation of a Canadian strategic petroleum reserve.

Support for the corridor also comes from Southern Ontario, where the region’s petrochemical and energy industries depend on oil and gas supplies delivered by a pipeline that crosses Michigan.

“We believe this represents an opportunity to achieve both energy security for Ontario and Canada, and economic growth and diversification potential,” said Matthew Slotwinski, CEO of the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership.

“Long-term, reliable and secure feedstock supply is necessary for the sustained success and potential growth of our current operations.”

The Sarnia-Lambton region is home to Ontario’s largest concentration of energy infrastructure, including refineries, chemical plants, power generators, and Enbridge Gas’s Dawn Hub, where much of the province’s natural gas supply is gathered for commercial distribution.

The region is also exploring new opportunities in liquefied natural gas (LNG), hydrogen, and alternative fuels.

“Very few of Ontario’s cars would drive, flights would fly, or homes would be heated without the products that originate from the Sarnia-Lambton energy and chemistry complex,” Slotwinski said.

“Our industry leaders need to be front and centre in identifying how they can be harnessed as part of any nation-building exercise.”

Labour groups are also throwing their weight behind the energy corridor initiative, pointing out that Michigan’s governor wants to shut down the pipeline that carries Canadian oil and gas through its borders.

Mike Gallagher, business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 793, told CBC that he supports the corridor as a source of jobs and independence.

“As far as I’m concerned, the sooner this gets done, the better,” he said.

“A new pipeline would not only create jobs, it would strengthen our country’s independence and is exactly the kind of nation-building project that Prime Minister Carney promised to deliver.”