The Unscientific and Suicidal Corporate Net-Zero Movement

In this issue:

  • The Unscientific and Suicidal Corporate Net-Zero Movement
  • Talking points on the Paris Climate Accords
  • How to make “human progress positive” purchases
  • Upcoming Accelerator Call

The Unscientific and Suicidal Corporate Net-Zero Movement

It’s all the rage today for corporations to announce “net-zero” targets as part of their (also all the rage) “ESG” (Environmental Social Governance) commitments.

I recently read a very valuable paper, “The Climate Noose,” by Rupert Darwall, author of the excellent The Age of Global Warming and one of my favorite energy/environment researchers. So I thought Rupert would be the perfect person to help me break down why the corporate net-zero movement is unscientific and suicidal. Here’s the official description:

Rupert Darwall on The Unscientific and Suicidal Corporate Net-Zero Movement

On this episode of Power Hour Alex Epstein interviews energy/environment researcher Rupert Darwall, author of The Age of Global Warming and Green Tyranny, on why the corporate “net-zero” movement is unscientific and suicidal. 

Here’s some of what they cover:

  • Where the net-zero-by-2050 and its accompanying 1.5 degrees C target came from. Hint: It’s not a scientific origin.
  • How even small steps toward “net-zero” are harming citizens and industry in the UK.
  • The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) religious focus on minimizing human impact on the planet instead of maximizing human flourishing on the planet.
  • How the IPCC evades the amazing improvement in human life over the past two centuries and fossil fuels’ fundamental role in it.
  • How the IPCC doesn’t seriously address the costs of net-zero policies.
  • Why certain elements of Wall Street find “net-zero“ so compelling.

At the end of the episode Alex explains why he considers the UN’s IPCC to be primarily a religious, not scientific organization.

You can watch on YouTube or listen on Apple Podcasts.

Talking points on the Paris Climate Accords

Rejoining the Paris Climate Accords is probably Joe Biden’s first energy-related priority. While this will be hard to stop, it is still important to have clarity on why this is wrong. Here’s what I think is the best high-level argument against the Paris Climate Accords.

Any proper decision to enter an international agreement must pass 3 tests:

  1. It must be Constitutional.
  2. It must benefit the United States.
  3. It must be moral.

Joe Biden rejoining the Paris Climate Accords without Senate authorization fails all 3.

Part of “Arguing to 100” is always being clear on what we stand for. By giving our standard or standards for international agreements, we make much clearer what’s wrong with the Paris Accords than if we just start leveling criticisms out of context.

I elaborated on each point on Twitter, and will soon post new talking points on

  • Reason #1 why Biden should not rejoin Paris: to do so without Senate authorization is Unconstitutional. The Paris Accords, an unprecedented commitment to change our economy, is a treaty if there ever was one. Obama had no right to enter it unilaterally, and neither does Biden.
  • Reason #2 why Biden should not rejoin Paris: it goes against US interests. The Paris Climate Accords commit the US to emissions reductions that would make our energy uncompetitively expensive–while China committed to nothing. Joining it was being a sucker, not a leader.
  • Reason #3 why Biden should not rejoin the Paris Climate Accords: it is immoral. A moral international policy is one that expands human flourishing and human freedom. Paris is a path to outlawing fossil fuels, the way to provide affordable, reliable energy for billions of people.
  • If the US shouldn’t rejoin the Paris Climate Accords, what should we do? First, recognize reality: there is climate change but no climate crisis. Fossil fuels’ overall impact is incredibly positive. Second, liberate oppressed non-carbon alternatives, above all nuclear energy.

How to make “human progress positive” purchases

I recently got a $1 Accelerator contribution along with the following note.

Hi! So I was hungry one day and it was late so only these two burger joints were open: one with great burgers but an emphasis on environmentalism and another with average burgers but no such emphasis. I chose the one with the better burger because I was in dire need of one. The next day I discussed this problem with one of my friends since I wanted to go there more often. He suggested almost jokingly, why don’t I send a dollar to alex every time I eat there. That way I can have my burger fix even when I’m not in such an emergency and I can stay human-progress neutral or even positive!

So I guess you have a dollar to look forward to every time I eat there now. Thanks for all your work, I think humanity would be far behind where we are now without it, and feel free to mention this on the podcast if you believe it could be as lucrative in the hands of the rest of your audience.

So there you go: if you ever feel bad about an anti-human element of some product or service you’re purchasing, go “human progress positive” by going to our Accelerator page :-).

Upcoming Accelerator Call

This Sunday, January 17th at 2 pm PST I’ll be hosting an Accelerator Call to discuss strategy, share new insights, and answer questions.

In addition to sharing the latest on my book and on Energy Talking Points I will give a brief presentation “How to Change the Moral Narrative on Energy.” I have been learning a lot about “moral narratives” lately and am eager to share my latest views.

If you’re already an Accelerator, you’ll get an invitation.

If you’re not and want to come on the call, become an Accelerator at any level.

Note: For Accelerators who can’t attend I’ll make a recording of the call available for a week.

To Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Energy,