VIDEO: At the Crossroads IV — Energy & Climate Policy Summit

I just got back to California last night after a packed week in our nation’s capital. Happily, it was by far the most impactful week I’ve ever spent in DC.

The most exciting development during the trip is something I can’t talk about yet, unfortunately–and its outcome is uncertain–but there is a real chance I will help shape a new project that will give tens of millions of people access to energy for the first time. I should know within six months.

Now, what I can talk about.

Yesterday I spoke at the “Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit” hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). I gave the latest version of my “Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” talk. (Starts about 2:14:00 in.) If you haven’t heard me speak in a while make sure to check it out as I’ve added some new content, particularly about how to properly frame the discussion.

Also, make sure to watch the appearance by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. I was very impressed by him; he clearly cares and thinks carefully about both industrial progress and environmental quality. (One interesting point he made is that previous EPAs didn’t care about environmental quality because they were on their anti-carbon crusades.) I didn’t get to meet him this time around because he left immediately for a flight, but I will make sure to in the future. I would certainly like to help his efforts in any way that I can.

Thanks to the TPPF, especially Brooke Rollins and Chip Roy, for inviting me. Also thanks to the Heritage Foundation, who sponsored one of the first Moral Case for Fossil Fuels launch events back in 2014.

On Wednesday morning I spoke to the Congressional Coal Caucus. Congressman Andy Barr of Kentucky invited me and he was joined by about seven other Congressmen, including Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. I discussed how coal supporters have failed by “arguing to 0” (including defending coal primarily based on jobs) and outlined how they could “argue to 100” that coal is good because it is so often the best form of energy for human flourishing.

I also had some meetings with major thought leaders and political officials. It’s very gratifying that The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels has given me the opportunity to have a real influence on energy policy.

You can also check out two of my recent recent interviews. In my appearance on the Wealth Formula Podcast, we delved deep into how to have constructive conversations about fossil fuels (and controversial issues in general). You can listen to that here.

I also had a fun interview with the Renegade Report about my debate at Africa Oil Week, where I got to discuss some of the things I learned during my trip to Africa. You can listen to that here.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

2. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan (R) endorsed by radical environmentalist group

Florida Representative proudly posted on his Facebook page an endorsement by Ocean Champions:

But who is Ocean Champions?

According to its website:

Ocean Champions is a 501(c)(4) organization with a connected political action committee – the first national organization of its kind focused solely on oceans and ocean wildlife. Our goal is to create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority. By helping to elect pro-ocean Congressional candidates and engaging with Congress to pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean.

What does Ocean Champions mean by having a goal to “create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority” and to “pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean?”

Under the Obama administration this meant implementation of the National Ocean Policy on July 19, 2010, known as “Ocean Zoning.” This policy was fully supported by Ocean Champions and twelve other environment groups. In a July 19, 2010 press release titled “Conservation Groups Applaud National Ocean Policy” David Wilmot, Ph.D., President and Co-Founder of Ocean Champion stated:

The nation can now look to the National Ocean Policy to provide a guiding vision for all federal agencies and a needed mandate for the future protection and restoration of our coasts, oceans, islands and Great Lakes.

The House Committee on Natural Resources wrote this about the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy:

  • In four separate Congresses, legislation has been introduced to implement similar far-reaching ocean policies, and to-date NO bill has passed the House or been reported out of a Committee. Despite numerous requests from the Committee, the administration has yet to cite specific statutory authority on which this policy is based.
  • Rather than streamline Federal management, the policy adds layers of additional Federal bureaucracy that could significantly impact the economic and recreational uses of our oceans, ocean lands, and potentially all rivers, tributaries and lands that drain or adjoin our oceans. In total, the Executive Order creates: 10 National Policies; a 27-member National Ocean Council; an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee; and 9 Regional Planning Bodies. This has led to an additional: 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning to be created.
  • Restrictive national standards, along with ocean zoning, could slow and potentially stop the permitting of activities such as commercial and recreational fishing and energy production. This will harm the economy and cost jobs.
  • Although the policy is portrayed by the administration as primarily targeting Ocean related activities, recently released documents show just the opposite. The draft implement plan specifically states that the policy plans to address “the major impacts of urban and suburban development and agriculture—including forestry and animal feedlots.”
  • The policy establishes a Federally-controlled system of regional planning bodies that could override local and state zoning authorities. These bodies will have broad authority to issue regulations potentially impacting all activities that occur on lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries or watersheds that eventually drain into the ocean, yet these bodies will allow no representation by the people, communities and businesses that will actually be impacted by the regulations.
  • The new national standards will also create a whole new class of lawsuits that could further restrict permitting of coastal and ocean activities and create a new way to challenge state permitting decisions for activities that “might affect” the ocean environment. This initiative is poised to become a litigation nightmare.
  • Over 80 national and local organizations representing agriculture, forestry, energy, fishing, boating, mining, transportation and construction wrote to Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers requesting a prohibition on funding for the implementation of the President’s National Ocean Policy.
  • This new policy will affect already budget-strapped agencies such as NOAA, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, EPA, Department of Transportation, USDA, Homeland Security, and the Army Corps of Engineers. As Federal budgets are further reduced, it is unclear how much funding the agencies are taking from existing programs to develop and implement this new initiative. [Emphasis added]

So Buchanan is against Florida’s fishing, boating, agricultural, forestry and energy industries. He wants to take control of  Florida’s shorelines and give oversight to unelected bureaucrats. He wants less permitting for construction along Florida’s shores and more lawsuits.

So is Rep. Buchanan pro-Florida? Pro jobs and for a growing Florida economy. Is he for the working people of Florida or not.

According to the House Committee on Natural Resources you can’t be pro-ocean and pro-growth. Pick one: the people of Florida or the ocean.

We report, you do your own research.


Fishermen Need More Flexibility than NOAA Doles Out

Six Years Later, Strong Uncertainty About President Obama’s National Ocean Policy Remains

Some Recent Energy & Environmental News

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

We’re repeating this key report as it is very popular: at least ten (10) financial liabilities that can adversely affect a community hosting a wind project!

Here’s a new summary document that lists multiple ways that industrial wind turbines can interfere with various types of communication — including RADAR.

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:

Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat

Wind & Solar are Less Efficient Decarbonizers than CC Gas Turbines

Maine DEP Issues Draft Wind Energy Rules (two VERY good parts)

Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream

Tesla battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving

Report by head of German Wildlife FoundationTruly Green?

Stop Subsidizing the Big Wind Bullies

Excellent: Senate speech re killing the wind PTC

Presentation: Hidden Costs of Wind and Solar Power

Videos: America First Energy Conference

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

The Paris Agreement: A Fairytale’s Failure

Reconciling CO2 Concentrations With Emissions and Energy Consumption

NOAA Lets Politics Corrupt Its Science

Important crowd-funding request is here

Core of climate science is in the real-world data

The Climate Alarmists Definitely Don’t Believe Their Own Propaganda

NYT: The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid

The Real Story Behind The Heartland Institute’s Role In The Trump Admin

John Droz, Jr.
Physicist & Citizen Advocate

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

By Michael Bastasch

For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”

This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.

To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns “soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

“We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home,” the scientists and experts warned.

It’s a terrifying warning — if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition.

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote.

3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened

Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” That deadline has passed, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved.

Though the recently-released “Paradise Papers” show Charles lobbied U.K. lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate’s investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there’s that.

4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now

Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the “ice apocalypse” at a pace “too quickly for humanity to adapt.”

Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers — Pine Island and Thwaites — could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in “flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.” Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren’t really backed up by the science.

“I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain,” Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who’s studied Antarctica, wrote in The Guardian about Holthaus’s article.

5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming

World leaders meeting at the Vatican  issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming…since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

7. Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming

When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans,” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”

8. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?

World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

Europe Squanders Money on Green Dreams

By Cathie Adams, Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman.

President Trump’s energy agenda assures a bright future for Americans. He and his delegation did an amazing job defending free-market capitalism, national sovereignty, and our standard of living in Bonn without pandering to the radical greens. To stay on this bright path, it is imperative that Americans understand the United Nations agenda, and boldly stand with our President.

The supposed purpose of the Bonn meeting was to create a rulebook to implement the Paris Agreement, but that work will continue into next year at meetings leading up to the next major meeting in Poland.

Senators at COP23 in Bonn, Germany

The real purpose of the Bonn meeting, and every climate change meeting, is to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries.  This statement by the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) prior to convening in Bonn affirms the claim: “The LDCs are calling for COP23 to be a COP of finance and support…for two funds in particular, the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Adaptation Fund.” They were highly successful as evidenced by these examples:

  • Germany pledged 50 million Euros on the opening day of the conference to the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and another 50 million Euros to the Adaptation Fund.
  • Germany also pledged an additional $125 million for an InsuResilience Initiative, a provision of insurance to 400 million poor people by 2020. This insurance mechanism is a partnership between Germany, the UK, other nations, and financial institutions such as the World Bank. This brings G20 nations into partnership with 49 vulnerable nations, called the V20.
  • Germany and Britain combined pledged $153 million to expand programs to fight climate change and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.
  • The UK pledged 30 million Pounds to its Centre for Global Disaster Protection. And to immediately begin phasing out its coal usage.
  • Belgium pledged 3.25 million Euros to the LDCF.
  • Sweden pledged $185 million to the Adaptation Fund, plus $185 million to the LDCF.
  • Luxembourg pledged 5 million Euros to the Green for Growth Fund for development in the Middle East and North Africa.
  • Norway, Unilever, and the World Bank pledged $400 million to stimulate resilient social development, i.e. high productivity agriculture, smallholder inclusion and forest protection. Laura Tuck, VP of sustainable development at the World Bank commented, “Achieving economic development and the eradication of poverty can’t be achieved if we don’t build climate resilience. This is why the World Bank is putting resilience, and the management of climate risks, at the heart of its investments.”
  • Norway also announced that it will divest its pension funds amounting to about $35-40 billion from fossil fuel companies.
  • Italy pledged 7 million Euros to the Adaptation Fund and another 2.5 million Euros to create a new “Capacity Award Program to Advance Capabilities and Institutional Training in one Year (CAPACITY) to developing local professional expertise in countries that are most vulnerable to climate change.
  • The European Investment Bank pledged $75 million for a new $405 million investment for the Water Authority of Fiji to strengthen the resilience of water distribution and wastewater treatment following Cyclone Winston in February 2016.
  • The Green Climate Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development pledged a $37.6 grant for a $243 million project to make Moroccan agriculture more resilient.
  • The World Resources Institute pledged $2.1 billion of private investment to restore degraded lands in Latin America and the Caribbean.
  • The UN Development Program, Germany, Spain and the EU pledged 42 million Euros for the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Support Program to help countries deliver on the Paris Agreement.
  • Thirteen countries and the International Energy Agency pledged 30 million Euros to the “IEA Clean Energy Transitions Program” to support clean energy transitions around the world.
  • Ecuador pledged to reduce 15 million tons of CO2 emissions in its forest sector.
  • National parks in the central African nation of Gabon pledged to halt illegal logging to stop 20 million tons of CO2.
  • Microsoft and Walmart also announced pledges to the UN climate change agenda. Microsoft pledged to cut CO2 emissions by 75% by 2030. And Walmart pledged to provide commodities that do not increase deforestation.
  • A gender action plan, an indigenous peoples platform, and an oceans pathway were created, but the Fiji host did not get what they wanted most: money for storm loss and damage.

Billions or even trillions of dollars will never satisfy the radical greens. Raijeli Nicole, regional director for Oxfam in the Pacific, put it this way, “For the most part, rich countries showed up to Bonn empty-handed. Instead, we got a tepid agreement that they’ll report back next year on progress towards their $100 billion promise.” The $100 billion promise is the annual UN Green Climate Fund that currently contains only about $10 billion.

Litigation abuse is another tool being plied by the radical greens.They have a number of legal cases hoping the courts will impose penalties for climate change on fossil fuel companies, similar to the penalties that were levied against the tobacco industry. They also bragged about potential litigation against major meat producers accusing them of liability for methane emissions.

The U.S. wisely kept a low profile in Bonn. Judith G. Garber, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, did address the delegations reiterating President Trump’s plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, yet to remain open to rejoining under terms more favorable to the American people. She reported that while the U.S., since 2005, has reduced net greenhouse gas emissions by 11.5%, our economy has grown 15%, adjusted for inflation. She added that the U.S. will continue to support the cleanest, most efficient power generation, regardless of the source.

But that didn’t prevent U.S. Democratic Senators from Rhode Island, Oregon, Hawaii and Massachusetts from showing up in Bonn to make delusional claims: “Trump is just a temporary resident of the White House….Climate outlasts Presidents….We hold the Trump card….The American people are still in [the Paris Agreement.”

Jesse Young, a senior advisor at Oxfam America, also threw jabs at Garber’s remarks: “Today, the U.S. said it remains open to staying in Paris, and wants to help the world address the challenges of climate change. But until they cease their efforts to leave Paris and actually invest in policies to fight climate impacts — today’s statement will be worth little more than the paper on which it was written.”

Oxfam’s Pacific representative added, “From activists to governors and business leaders, we saw the real face of American climate activism here in Bonn. The world has left Trump behind, sitting alone on a throne of coal.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

The undeniable truth is that America’s free-market capitalism, our clean air and water, and our standard of living are lights on a hill that can greatly benefit the rest of the world. Should the radical greens choose to take off their socialist blinders, they too can follow our successful path to an even brighter future.

Cathie Adams

Cathie Adams currently serves as the “International Issues” chairman for Eagle Forum and on the board of the national Eagle Forum. She previously served five years as president of the Dallas Eagle Forum and 16 years as president of the Texas Eagle Forum, until being elected chairman of the Republican Party of Texas in 2009. She was named by Campaigns and Elections magazine’s August 2010 issue as one of the top 50 Republican influencers in Texas.

Eagle Forum’s mission is to enable conservative and pro-family men and women to participate in the process of self-government and public policy-making so that America will continue to be a land of individual liberty, respect for family integrity, public and private virtue, and private enterprise.

Cathie has been an election judge, a member of the district, state and national resolutions/platform committees; and a delegate to five Republican National Conventions. She was elected Republican National Committeewoman for Texas and as Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.

Capitol Inside’s Texas Lobby Power Rankings placed Cathie first on their list of lobbyists for cause from 2005 through 2009. “The Democratic insurgence hasn’t pushed Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie Adams out of the number one spot on the list of people who lobby for causes. Adams, a veteran activist who was elected to the Republican National Committee last summer, commands the immediate attention of GOP lawmakers whenever her organization decides to turn up the grassroots pressure on conservative issues dear to its heart.”

Most recently, Cathie has been observing the United Nations design a Green Climate Fund. As an observer of major UN conferences since 1995, Cathie enjoys telling about her experiences. She attended the Women’s Conference in Beijing, China; the Housing Summit in Istanbul, Turkey; the Food Summit in Rome, Italy; and a number of Climate Change meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bonn, Germany, The Hague, Netherlands, Poznan, Poland and Cancun, Mexico. When the International Criminal Court was created in Rome in 1998, Cathie attended the proceedings. She also attended the 2000 Millennium Summit in New York City, the Global Taxing Summit in Monterrey, Mexico, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. She traveled to Hong Kong for a Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization and to Paris, France for a UNESCO meeting.

Cathie has been involved in other civic activities as well. She was a member of the Human Services Commission for the City of Dallas, and has testified before the State Board of Education as well as several Legislative committees in Austin, Texas. The news media frequently calls her for the “conservative” side of their reporting.

Mrs. Cathie Adams is a full-time volunteer. She has been married to Dr. Homer Adams for 41 years and they have five grandchildren. Their son and daughter-in-law are both Texas A&M graduates.

Posts by Cathie Adams

Rep. Vern Buchanan Wrong on Sea Levels Rising, Wrong on the Paris Accord

Florida  Representative Vern Buchanan is running for reelection in 2018. He is now officially a career politician first elected in 2006. Buchanan has sadly learned how to pander to certain constituencies, like environmentalists, for political gain.

Recently Buchanan sent out the following in an email with an accompanying ABC Channel 7 video:

Climate change is a serious issue for a state like Florida that has two coastlines vulnerable to rising waters. That’s why I am again calling on President Trump to reconsider his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the landmark Paris Climate Accord.

Take a look at the video below and let me know what you think by replying to this email.


The greatest problem facing Florida is saltwater intrusion not rising sea levels.

Dr. Roger Bezdek has found that salt water intrusion is caused by land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal from subsurface shale and sandstone formations, and to “glacial isostatic adjustments” that have been ongoing since the last glaciers melted.

In a column titled “Sea level rise – or land subsidence? Excessive groundwater pumping is the real culprit” CFACT reports:

[T]he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in 2007 that seas might rise up to only 2 feet by 2107. By comparison, oceans have risen nearly 400 feet since the last ice age ended, reflecting how much water was trapped in mile-thick glaciers that buried much of North America, Europe, and Asia. In recent decades, though, global sea level rise has averaged just 7 inches per century…

[ … ]

As a new report by Dr. Roger Bezdek explains, reality is much different. (His report awaits publication in a scientific journal.) At least for the Chesapeake region, Houston-Galveston, Texas, area, Santa Clara Valley, California, and other places around the globe, the primary cause of seawater intrusions is not rising oceans – but land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal from subsurface shale and sandstone formations, and to “glacial isostatic adjustments” that have been ongoing since the last glaciers melted.

The solution therefore is not to continue trying to control Earth’s climate – an impossible, economy-busting task that would further impede fossil fuel use, economic development, job creation, and human health and welfare. The solution requires reducing groundwater removal in these coastal areas. 

President Trump was right to leave the Paris Accord. It is nothing more than a massive $100 billion annual “climate finance” transfer of money from the United States to third world countries. Also understand that China, Russia and India are paying nothing.

Clearly Representative Buchanan needs to understand that mankind cannot control either the weather or sea levels. But Florida can control the removal of groundwater in our coastal areas.

The real issue with Buchanan is drilling off of Florida’s coastlines, not the Paris Accord. He is against drilling while President Trump is opening up vast areas to energy exploration and fast tracking environmental processes and removing regulatory hindrances to energy exploration and drilling.

Buchanan is anti-President Trump’s policies of economic growth via increased energy production. That’s the real issue facing Floridians. Cheap reliable power or sending billions in U.S. tax dollars to third world nations. You choose.


Europe Squanders Money on Green Dreams

Another Obama Legacy: Americans Will Pay Billions for a Useless Climate Agreement

President Obama’s Climate-Change Agenda Costs American Lives

China caused a two percent surge in global CO2 emissions after joining the UN climate pact

Alarmists feverish over sea levels

From COP23 in Fiji to COP24 in Katowice the heart of Polish coal country

COP 23, the UN climate conference in Bonn, Germany, ended with a coal-powered whimper.

The point of the meeting was to write the rule book for the Paris Climate Agreement that President Obama signed the U.S. onto.

President Trump then declared that the U.S. would exit Paris and make no future payments to the UN’s Green Climate Fund upon which President Obama lavished $1 billion on his way out the door.

Paris calls for developed nations such as the U.S., Europeans, Japan, Canada and Australia to redistribute $100 billion starting in 2020.  That doesn’t seem very likely.  China and India don’t have to pay, by the way.

The island nation of Fiji chaired the COP and joined a host of poor countries in calling for the cash to start flowing.  They wanted “accelerated payments” even before Paris begins.  That money is, after all, the reason the poor nations signed on.They also want the developed world to assume liability for their “loss and damage” when they experience weather-related losses. It is important that we never agree to pay compensation for what, in reality, are naturally occurring weather events.  President Trump and the U.S. team were effective here in leading Europe and the rest in once again keeping loss and damage out the Paris Agreement.  COP 23 agreed to create a panel to “study” the issue and to make much smaller amounts available to developing nations.  That line must be held going forward.

Another key issue is the degree to which national reporting of emissions efforts will be transparent and verifiable.  The COP adopted some language on this, but China, the largest and fastest growing CO2 emitter, continues to resist verifiable standards.  They claim verification would be “too expensive.”  The satirical news site The Onion posted a brilliant headline on this a few years ago, “China Vows To Begin Aggressively Falsifying Air Pollution Numbers.”  Satire has a way of becoming all too real.

The level at which the rhetoric at COP 23, even from official negotiators, heads of state and elected officials, is divorced from the scientific facts on climate continues to astound.

When the President of Fiji tells the world that his island is already hard hit by global warming, and that last year’s Cyclone Winston was a product of climate change, he is way off.  It is tragic that 42 people lost their lives last year in Fiji.  However, they did not die because we drive cars and use electricity.

When disaster strikes the U.S. helps, not because, we are to blame, but because we are good neighbors.  Attributing natural weather to climate change as a rationale for redistribution of wealth needs to stop.

Climate pressure groups put out this nonsense, left-wing climate campaigners chant it in the halls, an unquestioning press prints it, and it ends up part of the official UN climate dialogue.  These narratives are unsupported by facts.  Check out Climate Depot’s extreme weather report for substantial details.

Next year’s COP 24 will be in Katowice, Poland.  The Poles underbid and won the right to host the COP.  We couldn’t think of a better venue.  Katowice is in the heart of Poland’s vital coal mining industry.  Local Poles are keenly aware that the UN is targeting their livelihood and Poland’s energy independence for extinction.  Like the coal miners in The Hunger Games District 12, they are ready to revolt.

Poland has a unique perspective.  The Poles experienced the tragedy of Socialist central planning up close and personal.  They’ve had enough and are shocked when spoiled westerners come back for more.  They certainly don’t want to depend on Russian natural gas to keep their lights on.

We look forward to ensuring the UN hears the real facts on global warming from CFACT and the Poles loud and clear.

VIDEO: Alex Epstein — Harvard Business School Fireside Chat

A few weeks ago I was joined by my favorite energy economist, Michael Lynch, for a fireside chat hosted by Harvard Business School. It was a great discussion and the audience asked a lot of thoughtful questions. You can now view the video of that event:

Mr. Epstein Goes to Washington

I’ll be in DC the week of November 27 to share my approach to reframing the energy debate with some high-level officials. It looks like I’ll be speaking to the Congressional Coal Caucus on Wednesday, November 29. On November 30, I’ll be speaking at the Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. The event is presented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation and includes some of the world’s leading scientists, policy makers, entrepreneurs, and energy experts. I will be speaking on the moral case for fossil fuels. The event is nearly sold out, but there will be a waiting list. You can find more information at

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

  1. Hire me to speak at your next event.
  2. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications. Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.
  3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

The Real Scandal in the Alabama Senate Race [Video]

Scandals take many forms. If you could be transported back to antebellum times, for example, would you not find the desire to perpetuate the legal institution of slavery scandalous? This brings us to the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, a contest now front-and-center with the recent sex allegations made against GOP hopeful Judge Roy Moore. Moore denies the charges, but there are certain things that can’t be denied.

Democrat Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, has some noteworthy positions. He’s pro-prenatal infanticide. It’s not a stance he took 40 years ago but has since abandoned, and it doesn’t mean he’s accused of once having kissed an underage girl.

It means he believes in the murder of underage girls — and boys. That’s beyond scandalous.

Jones supports de-facto amnesty, meaning, he wouldn’t even require illegal aliens to return to their home countries before being granted citizenship. This undermines the rule of law and exemplifies the treasonous attitude that subordinates the good of one’s countrymen to the good of invading foreigners — and all because they’ll vote Democrat after being naturalized. Selling out your culture for political power is scandal on steroids.

Jones supports the regulation of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food, because he pushes the dubious global-warmingclimate-change, uh, “global climate disruption” agenda. Since it’s average Americans who’ll pay these regulations’ costs, this serves to further impoverish the struggling. That’s scandalous.

Jones advocates the unscientific, socially disastrous “transgender” agenda. First, he said President Trump was “wrong, wrong, wrong” to return to the longtime status quo of banning so-called “transgender” people from the military; this means he supports social experimentation in the armed forces.

Second, he also supports allowing boys masquerading as girls to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. In fact, he said that Trump’s rescinding of Barack Obama’s school guidance to that effect was “wrong, wrong, wrong!” (Because, you see, when you say that way it makes the other guy three times as wrong.) By the way, below is a video of Jones expressing these sentiments just last month.

Oh, yeah — the above is scandalous, too.

In addition, Jones advocates using taxpayer money to fund fanciful, economically nonviable energy schemes such as solar, wind and thermal energy. Apparently, he’d like to repeat Obama’s “green energy” boondoggles (e.g., Solyndra), which only turned out green in that they wasted 2.2 billion worth of Americans’ greenbacks.

But Jones loves spending other people’s money. While he doesn’t believe in cutting your taxes to spur economic growth, he thinks having government give away your tax money will do so.

Lastly, despite the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, has caused millions of Americans’ healthcare premiums to rise and created co-ops that have collapsed right and left, Jones opposes rescinding the program. Well, no matter. He’ll have great healthcare through the Senate if he wins December 12.

As for the last four positions, some would say calling them scandalous is a stretch, so you can apply your own adjective (stupid comes to mind). And whatever you might prefer for characterizing all his positions, “old” and “repudiated” don’t fit. “Current” sure does, though.

So killing babies, killing the rule of law, killing with regulations, killing tradition and kids’ right to privacy, killing our pocketbooks, killing the economy and killing healthcare (sounds like an alternate-universe Bill O’Reilly book series). In the scandal department, Roy Moore has a long way to go to have a chance of keeping up with the Joneses.

Simply put, Doug Jones is the most scandalous of creatures: a leftist radical who is “wrong, wrong, wrong” on the issues. It’s a wonder he isn’t seeking office in California, New York, Massachusetts or North Korea. Running someone whose positions are so wholly contrary to Alabaman culture is a slap in the face to the state. Is this a political version of Punk’d?

If I lived in Alabama, on December 12 I’d vote for Judge Roy Moore while holding my nose — but only because the stench from Doug Jones’ name would be rising right from the ballot.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to


Hey Mitch, 63% Of Alabama Voters Still Support Judge Roy Moore ⋆

Alabama ABC Affiliate Can’t Find One Voter Who Believes WaPo Report About Roy Moore in Man-on-the-Street Segment – Breitbart

Ukraine Turns to American Coal to Defend Itself Against Russia

KYIV, Ukraine—Sometimes, wars aren’t won by tank battles and infantry assaults. Sometimes, it comes down to keeping the heat on.

As Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine nears its fifth calendar year—and as Ukraine’s infamously cold winter draws near—American companies are incrementally cutting into Russia’s de facto monopoly as a supplier of nuclear fuel and coal to Ukraine, thereby undermining a longtime coercive lever of Russian influence over Kyiv.

“In recent years, [Kyiv] and much of Eastern Europe have been reliant on and beholden to Russia to keep the heat on. That changes now,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry said in July, announcing an $80 million deal to ship more U.S. coal to Ukraine.

“The United States can offer Ukraine an alternative,” Perry said.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has often leveraged its power over Ukraine through the energy economy. Particularly, by cutting off gas supplies in winter. Consequently, energy security remains a linchpin for Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty from Moscow.

“Energy for years has been and continues on a daily non-military basis to be the prime Russian instrument for corrupting and subverting Ukraine,” Stephen Blank, senior fellow for Russia at the American Foreign Policy Council, told The Daily Signal.

The war in Ukraine is approaching its fifth calendar year. (Photos: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)

In the past year, the U.S. has upped its coal exports to Ukraine by more than 40 percent. The $80 million coal deal announced in July was for Pennsylvania-based Xcoal Energy & Resources to ship 700,000 tons of thermal coal to Ukraine by the end of the year—in time for the country to stockpile its energy reserves before the winter.

“It is a significant contribution to our energy security and a vivid proof of mutually beneficial strategic cooperation between our two nations,” Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko wrote in a Facebook post in September, following the first delivery of U.S. coal to Ukraine under the deal.

“While it continues to steal Ukrainian coal from Ukrainian Donbas, Russia has lost yet another tool for its energy blackmailing,” Poroshenko said, referring to Ukraine’s embattled southeastern Donbas region, where Ukrainian forces remain in combat against a combined force of pro-Russian separatists, foreign mercenaries, and Russian regulars.

On Tuesday, Kyiv announced it had introduced sanctions against Russia’s Yuzhtrans LLC, part of the Yuzhnaya Coal Co., which is one of the largest suppliers of anthracite coal from Russia to Ukraine.

Still, even after 43 months of de facto war between the two nations, Russia remains Ukraine’s top supplier of coal and nuclear fuel. Yet, U.S. companies are slowly chipping away at Russia’s dominance in Ukraine’s energy economy.

In 2014, 100 percent of Ukraine’s nuclear fuel came from Russia. By 2016, Russia’s share was down to 55 percent.

The U.S.-based nuclear power company Westinghouse now supplies nuclear fuel for six of Ukraine’s 15 nuclear reactors, generating about 30 percent of Ukraine’s overall energy needs.

In June, Poroshenko announced plans to further reduce Russia’s share of nuclear fuel supplies to Ukraine to 45 percent—with Westinghouse providing the remaining 55 percent.

“This will increase nuclear security,” Poroshenko said, according to a statement on his administration’s website.

Many ex-Soviet states like Ukraine rely heavily on Russian energy supplies spanning the gamut from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear fuel. A key means for the U.S. to thwart Russian coercive control over Ukraine and other post-Soviet states is to provide an alternative to Russia for energy security.

Increasing U.S. coal shipments to Ukraine will “allow Ukraine to diversify its energy sources ahead of the coming winter, helping bolster a key strategic partner against regional pressures that seek to undermine U.S. interests,” U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross said in a statement about the July coal deal.

According to Blank, however, eroding Russia’s leverage over Ukraine in the energy domain will require more than U.S. coal and nuclear fuel imports.

“I do see energy security as a key piece of the puzzle, but Ukraine also must do more to reform its entire energy economy beyond the impressive steps that it already has accomplished to keep it from becoming a Russian political football,” Blank said.

“Transparent markets will do a lot to effectuate such movement over time and restrict, though not terminate, Russian influence,” Blank added. “The point is to depoliticize Russian energy.”

Pressure Points

This November, after 43 months of nonstop combat, Ukrainian troops remain hunkered down in trenches and ad hoc forts along a 250-mile-long front line in the country’s embattled, southeastern Donbas region. There, Ukraine’s military continues to fight a grinding, static war against a combined force of pro-Russian separatists and Russian regulars that began in April 2014.

The conflict has, so far, killed more than 10,100 Ukrainians and displaced about 1.7 million people. The war has also dealt Ukraine’s economy a body blow—particularly when it comes to the energy economy.

When Russia seized Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in March 2014, it cost Ukraine about $1 billion in energy production assets. Russia’s subsequent proxy war in Ukraine’s southeastern Donbas region—the heart of Ukraine’s coal industry—also hit the country’s economy hard.

Russia’s proxy territories in the Donbas region amount to about 5 percent of Ukraine’s overall landmass, but accounted for about half of Ukraine’s coal and all of its anthracite extraction prior to the conflict.

Consequently, overall Ukrainian coal production dropped by 22 percent in 2014, the year Russian launched its proxy war in the Donbas. In the following, and despite the de facto state of war between the two countries, Russia was Ukraine’s largest coal supplier and coal shipments still traversed the front lines out of the Donbas into the rest of Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine began in April of 2014—daily fighting is ongoing.

Blocking coal supplies has become a key domain of Russia’s hybrid war on Ukraine.

In 2014, Ukraine’s energy economy faced near disaster. Russia had blocked its coal supplies, forcing 22 Ukrainian power plants to shut down temporarily.

That year, Ukraine purchased about $1.77 billion worth of coal, of which roughly $1.14 billion, or about 64 percent, came from Russia.

From January to October of 2017, Ukrainian coal imports jumped up to $2.15 billion, according to the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine.

Russia was the top coal supplier this year, accounting for 55.7 percent of total supplies, worth $1.2 billion. At 25 percent of the market, or $546.8 million, the United States was the second-leading supplier.

“This administration looks forward to making available even more of our abundant natural resources to allies and partners like Ukraine in the future to promote their own energy security through diversity of supply and source,” Perry said.

Ukraine has also turned to the European Union to divorce itself from Russian energy supplies.

In 2014, almost 100 percent of Ukraine’s natural gas supply came from Russia. Today, it all comes from the EU.

“Only three years ago resolute measures were taken. As a result, in 2016 and 2017 Ukraine did not consume Russian gas,” Poroshenko said in the online statement, adding: “Having carried out revolutionary measures, we buy all our gas in Europe today and do not let anyone blackmail Ukraine.”

Close Call

In February 2017, combined Russian-separatist forces shelled power lines supplying the Avdiivka Coke Plant in the front-line town of Avdiivka. The attack cut off all power to the facility.

All power and heating for Avdiivka and its 16,000 residents comes from the coke plant. And so, as temperatures plunged double digits below zero Celsius, Avdiivka went dark and cold. Poroshenko called the situation a “humanitarian disaster.”

It was not, however, a unique situation.

During 43 months of constant combat, combined Russian-separatist forces have often fired artillery and rockets at other power plants in the war zone. And Russian cyberattacks have repeatedly targeted Ukraine’s power grids well beyond the front lines—including in Kyiv.

Power lines leading to the combined Russian-separatist stronghold of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine.

Collectively, these attacks underscore Russia’s strategy to target Ukraine’s energy economy and infrastructure with both conventional military attacks and cyberwarfare to exert diplomatic pressure on Kyiv.

Such attacks, when they affect the day-to-day lives of normal Ukrainians, play into Russia’s ultimate ambition in Ukraine, which is to delegitimize the ruling government and to spread chaos.

The energy economy has also become a domestic political liability for Kyiv.

Last winter, Ukrainian political activists and volunteer battalion soldiers established a rail blockade in eastern Ukraine, cutting off the shipment of goods from the separatist territories into the rest of the country, including coal deliveries.

The blocked coal shipments spurred an energy crisis in February that led lawmakers in Kyiv to declare a national state of emergency.

Piece of the Pie

In January 2009, Russia cut its gas exports to Europe through Ukraine, plunging the Continent into an energy crisis almost overnight. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was then Russia’s prime minister, ordered Russian energy company Gazprom to cut its exports through Ukrainian pipelines by about three-fifths. The move came amid one of the lowest recorded winter temperatures in London in a century, sparking fears of a sharp increase in oil and gas prices.

In 2014, the year Russia seized Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and launched its proxy war in Ukraine’s coal-rich Donbas region, global oil prices fell from more than $100 a barrel to below $50 a barrel.

At that time, approximately 60 percent of Russia’s government revenue came from taxes on oil and gas exports. And about 80 percent of the gas Russia sent to Europe went through Ukraine’s pipelines.

In 2014, as the military conflict in the Donbas escalated, Russia and Ukraine were also locked in an energy dispute, with Russia threatening to cut off gas to Ukraine unless Kyiv recouped its debts to Moscow. In return, Kyiv threatened to block Russian oil and gas from reaching Europe.

Winter on the front lines in eastern Ukraine.

Last year, the Russian energy company Gazprom used Ukrainian pipelines to deliver about 46 percent of the gas it sent to Europe, according to Naftogaz, the national oil and gas company of Ukraine.

To bypass Ukraine, Russia is pushing to build the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea to Germany along a pre-existing pipeline route.

If realized, Nord Stream 2 would be an economic body blow to Ukraine.

“Nord Stream 2 would decrease gas transit through Ukraine and cost Ukraine up to $2.7 billion in lost revenues, or almost 3 percent of [gross domestic product] every year,” U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch said at an energy forum in Kyiv in October.

U.S. sanctions on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine have hindered financing for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The Russian oil company Gazprom has a majority-financing stake in the project.

Russia is also working on another route into Europe through Turkey and the Black Sea.


Control over hydrocarbon reserves in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov are another potential flashpoint for Russo-Ukrainian relations—which, some say, could escalate the simmering military conflict into a wider war.

In 2013, the year prior to the war, Ukrainian energy firms in Crimea extracted 1.651 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Ukraine’s Black Sea and Sea of Azov basins. That extraction rate was projected to increase to about 5 billion cubic meters annually—still only a fraction of what the region could potentially produce, according to a 2017 report by the National Institute for Strategic Studies of Ukraine.

Battle damage at a gas station in eastern Ukraine.

That was all lost when Russia invaded and seized Crimea in 2014. Additionally, Ukraine lost control of 10 stationary sea extraction platforms, four drilling rigs, 1,200 kilometers of pipelines, and 45 gas distribution stations.

Altogether, the loss of Crimea’s offshore energy extraction infrastructure cost the Ukrainian economy about $300 billion, the report said.

There are approximately 7 trillion cubic meters of methane hydrate deposits within Ukrainian waters in the Black Sea. And, according to a 2010 U.S. Geological Survey study, there are an estimated 218 million barrels of recoverable crude oil and 4,093 billion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the Sea of Azov, on which Russia and Ukraine both have coastlines.

“Competing energy claims in these areas might be a minor part of a new casus belli, but not the main ones,” Blank said. “The issue is Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity, not energy.”

Portrait of Nolan Peterson

Nolan Peterson

Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal’s foreign correspondent based in Ukraine. Send an email to Nolan. Twitter: @nolanwpeterson

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


Energy Day: A New Analogy

Earlier this week I gave the keynote speech at Energy Day, the most significant annual energy event in Peru.

The event was hosted by the firm Laub & Quijandría, led by Anthony Laub. One of the highlights of my trip was meeting Anthony’s team before my speech and discussing The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels; they conveyed an understanding that the book’s method is even more distinctive and important than the book’s conclusion.

During the speech I made an analogy I’ve never made before. I thought you might enjoy it.

“The fossil fuel industry is the only industry in history that has figured out how to produce cheap, plentiful, reliable energy for billions of people. Even if there are costs, I think we should be really grateful to the people who’ve done this. I think it’s offensive that we say things like, ‘I hate fossil fuels.’

“I was flying in yesterday on Avianca, and it made me think: what if there had been someone on the plane who had said to the pilot, ‘You know what? I think what you do is evil,’ and they were wearing an ‘I hate pilots’ shirt, and they just spent their whole life denouncing pilots. What would you say to them if you were the pilot? You’d probably say, ‘Get off the damn plane.’ What kind of person takes advantage of this amazing human being that’s allowing him to fly, and then says, ‘I hate you, and I want to destroy you’?

“How is it any different to do that to the pilot than to do it to the person who fuels the plane or the person who created the fuel?

“There’s only one industry that allows us to fly. It’s the fossil fuel industry. We tell the industry, ‘Hey, we want to do the most amazing thing ever. We want to fly, so we can get from point A to point B really fast.’ Only one industry has raised its hand and said, ‘Yeah, we figured out a way to do that.’ Then we say, ‘We hate you. You’re horrible. The earth would be better off without you.’”

Earlier this week I told you about the online version of my course, “How to Have Constructive Conversations About Energy,” part of my brand new Energy Champion program. One of the things I’m most excited about is the live version of this course.

This is a one-day live training program, taught by me, where I will take your team through:

  • The positive impacts of fossil fuel use
  • The negative impacts of fossil fuel use
  • Energy policy
  • Having constructive conversations about fossil fuel use

This course was developed in consultation with training specialists and focus-group tested to ensure that companies get the best possible results. It also features some of the best material we’ve ever created:

  • High-quality videos and other visuals
  • Exercises that will help participants own the material
  • In-depth handbooks, handouts, and other material to maximize employee retention
  • Lifetime access to the online version of our “How to Have Constructive Conversations About Energy” course

If you’re interested, reply to this email and put “Energy Champion Live” in the subject line.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

2. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

PS: I got this feedback in response to a workshop I recently conducted: “It is very encouraging to receive useful tools to help us deal with all-too-common situations we find ourselves in that make us feel very uncomfortable and that we know are just not right…the Constructive Conversation Formula…is fantastic. Doing the role playing and providing examples was absolutely essential.”

New Ambassador Course: “How to Have Constructive Conversations About Energy” [Video]

I’m excited to announce that you can now sign up for my universal and comprehensive training program for employees in the moral case for fossil fuels and the art of constructive conversation. “How to Have Constructive Conversations About Energy” is the best method I know of for creating motivated, effective ambassadors.


Click on the image to see the Ambassador Course videos.

In this course, you’ll find:

  • The most effective energy ambassador material ever created
  • 20 slideshow video lessons, 7 animated video lessons, 50 email lessons
  • Quizzes with individualized feedback from me and other experts at the Center for Industrial Progress
  • Certification as an “Energy Champion Level 1” after completing the entire program

The program is available online and in-person. Visit the sign up page for more information including the full curriculum, pricing, and a sample video.

Sample video: 1.0 From frustrating fights to constructive conversations

1.0 From frustrating fights to constructive conversations from Alex Epstein on Vimeo

RELATED VIDEO: How to Talk to Anyone About Energy by Alex Epstein

My talk at Google on the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I had spoken at Google on the moral case for fossil fuels. My talk just went up on their YouTube​ page! You can watch it here.

If you watch it and like it I hope you click thumbs up and make a comment. It would be really cool to get this video to ascend the ranks of the Google Author talks

Thanks again to Dan Hackney for getting me the invite.

Two Great Videos from Kansas Strong

Recently, I received the following note from Warren Martin, Executive Director of Kansas Strong, “a nonprofit organization voluntarily funded by oil and natural gas producers in Kansas” that “works to educate and inform people about the important role our industry plays in their live.”:

“As a philosophy graduate myself, I found Alex Epstein’s book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels very compelling and informative. His book and additional resources have played a major role in my efforts with Kansas Strong to promote the Kansas oil & gas industry. Alex’s perspective, initiatives and data have been a tremendous asset in our efforts to reframe the issue and emphasize the importance oil and natural gas have on our day to day lives. We have developed videos, articles, print campaigns and keynote presentations that delve into the everyday lives of everyday people to show how vital oil and natural gas is to how they live. It is far more than the price at the pump. It enables people to maximize their lives. Whether you look at life expectancy, infant birth rates, quality of life or numerous other data points, oil and natural gas have played a major role in improving our lives and enabling, as Alex says, ‘human flourishing.’ Alex’s work has proven to be an extraordinary resource for our efforts to engage the public in creative ways to begin conversations, facilitate education and challenge misconceptions about the industry!” -Warren Martin

Kansas Strong has done an outstanding job of putting these ideas into practice in two of their recent videos.

In this video, they take the moral high ground on environmental issues, pointing out that “the issue is not a choice between the environment and the industry. Nor is it about protecting the environment from the industry. The real issue we should be discussion is how is the oil and gas industry working to create the best environment for humanity?”

One of the tactics I use to get people to appreciate the vital importance of fossil fuels is I take them on an “oil walk,” where I go step-by-step through their day, pointing to all of the things in their lives made from petroleum. This video does a great job of visualizing the omnipresence of oil products, ending with the tagline “Petroleum. It’s Part of Everything We Do.”

I hope you watch both videos. This is the sort of impactful content that’s possible when you learn how to reframe the debate in pro-human, whole-picture terms. I’m excited to see much more of this kind of messaging from the industry in the future.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready,here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate.

If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

2. Hold a free Lunch-and-Learn (inside or outside the industry).

This program contains one of my favorite debates along with some “cheat sheets” to help you make the moral case for fossil fuels in your professional and personal life more easily than you thought possible. You can have access to the entire program right now. By the end of the session you and your team will:

  • gain a deeper sense of meaning from their work
  • be able to turn fossil fuel skeptics into fossil fuel supporters
  • learn the secrets to having constructive conversations about energy instead of frustrating fights

Click here to sign up for the free program.

3. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

Three years to save the Earth? [This time]

Former UN top climate official Christiana Figueres just told the world we only have “three years” to save the planet … and all it will cost is $1.5 trillion per year.

Gee, guess we should hurry and jump on that deal … not.

Call us suspicious, but this is the same Figueres who infamously in 2015 announced the UN’s intention to replace free-market capitalism with bureaucratic control saying:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

That Figueres would now make such a doomsday prediction and then ask for such large sums of money, especially in light of her ambitious stated goal to control and direct the economic path of the whole earth, should be enough to make anyone roll their eyes.

But not so with Fake News media. They eat this all up.

If they bothered to look, they’d see there’s a long history of these so-called climate “tipping points” made by alarmists – all of which harmlessly passed without incident.

For those of us old enough to remember, the UN announced a 10-year tipping point way back in 1982, and then did so again in 1989. In both cases, these dates passed without any of the predicted doom-and-gloom taking place.

In 2006 Al Gore told us in An Inconvenient Truth the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014. He gave the planet only 10 years to escape before what, as Jim Morrison of TheDoorsmight say, would be “The End.”

Not surprisingly, as CFACT’s undercover film review operative found out at the Sundance Film festival earlier this year, Al doesn’t like it much if you ask him today how we survived.

Of course there’s more.

In 2008, ABC’s Bob Woodruff hosted a program where scientists told us that agriculture would collapse by “2015,” that a carton of milk would be $12.99, a gallon of gas $9 and large portions of NYC would be underwater.

And in 2009, Prince Charles declared we only had 96 months to save the Earth.  That same year NASA’s James Hansen said we only had until the end of President Obama’s first term, though U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said we only had 50 days until the global warming apocalypse took place.

It goes on and on.

You’d think the embarrassment of potentially being labeled “false prophets” would make them, well, shut up. But no, the soothsaying doesn’t stop. It just gets more insane.

Marc Morano does a great job of keeping track of all the climate tipping points that came and went at CFACT’s Climate Depot.

Our advice: If warming campaigners want to keep doing this Nostradamus gig, perhaps they should at least wait until they get one of their prophecies right before demanding a $1.5 trillion ransom.

RELATED ARTICLE: Don’t Believe the Hysteria Over Carbon Dioxide

EDITORS NOTE: Read the facts at

Eco-Summit 2017: The future belongs to the ‘Skeptics’

In a recent interview, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” predicted climate science will advance once so-called “climate deniers” die out.

Nye may be convinced younger generations will grow up sold on alarmist lies, but the remarkable student leaders I met at CFACT’s 14th annual Eco-Summit last week beg to differ!

These collegiates from all across the country just finished attending CFACT’s “eco-summit” leadership conference in Baltimore, Maryland, and are now getting ready to return to their campuses fully equipped to battle radical Greens and climate alarmists.

“This was one of the most informative and engaging conferences I’ve ever been to,” said Marcus Swentkofske, a senior at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. “The global warming narrative is all about government control. It reminds me of The Road to Serfdom by Hayek.”

Hailing from California, Washington State, Nevada, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington D.C., Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey, these young leaders are certain to have an incredible impact on their peers when they return to their campuses this fall.

The speakers they heard from at the Eco-Summit were impressive, and certainly gave them much ammunition.

Marc Morano addressed the long history of climate change hysteria, while CFACT policy expert Paul Driessen spoke about the harmful effects Green policies have on the developing world.

Property rights advocate Martha Boneta and leading scientist Dr. Kelvin Kemm from South Africa spoke respectively about protecting farmers and the benefits of the free market in animal conservation.

CFACT president David Rothbard also presented our organization’s vision to the students, notably highlighting the Committee’s “Adopt a Village” work in the developing world.

“I loved hearing about the mission of CFACT and how fighting climate alarmism fits into the goal of uplifting the poor,” said Maya Maley of Azusa Pacific University in California. “This is a message I can take back to my campus where many students care about helping the least fortunate around the world.”

The summit wasn’t all hard work though. Students attended a Baltimore Orioles game and went to dinner on the beautiful Inner Harbor in downtown Baltimore, giving them the opportunity to network and grow friendships that will last beyond the conference.

Christian Spears, a sophomore at Seattle University, was fired up to bring what he learned back to campus. “We’ve planned out our club agenda for the coming year and are really excited to work more with CFACT, especially after the summit!”

I was impressed by the questions, enthusiasm, and genuine interest that our student leaders exhibited at the Eco-Summit. These collegians are brave, sometimes risking their reputations and grades on “politically correct” campuses to publicly fight for the truth.

I know you will join me in applauding their tenacity and expectantly waiting to see what they can achieve on campus this coming academic year.