From CFACT

By Nate Myers

As I watched the final round of the youth-led COP30 forum virtually, young attendees took the stage to deliver a message that — perhaps without realizing it — exposed deep cracks in the UN’s climate machinery. Their remarks reflected growing disillusionment with the empty pageantry of these conferences: endless speeches, layers of process, and the ritualistic unveiling of new pledges that generate headlines but no real environmental progress. What they expressed was frustration, but it was also something more telling: a recognition that top-down bureaucracy is failing and that real solutions come from people — not committees.

For decades, COP gatherings have followed a predictable script: sweeping rhetoric, “historic” declarations, and regulatory proposals that burden economies while doing little for the environment. The youth panel cut through that veneer with surprising honesty. Speaker after speaker detailed the tedious committee process, their exclusion from meaningful decision-making, and the tokenized nature of “youth representation.” They are invited into the room to be seen but rarely permitted more than a minute to be heard.

One of the strongest themes to emerge from the panel was a demand for implementation over promises. Young participants openly questioned why nations repeatedly announce ambitious targets but fail to achieve them. Far from a radical revelation, this is a point free-market environmentalists have made for years: Central planners are excellent at drafting frameworks, but terrible at delivering results. Top-down mandates often contradict technological or economic realities, restrict innovation, and make it harder — not easier — for communities to adapt and thrive.

Instead of doubling down on global regulation, countries should be empowering innovators, entrepreneurs, and communities to scale the technologies that actually improve environmental outcomes. Holistic agriculture, better land management, advanced nuclear power, biodegradable plastics, and unique solutions to pollution — all are being developed not by UN subcommittees but by problem-solvers who get their hands dirty and build things. It is technological innovation, not political pageantry, that moves the needle.

The youth panel also highlighted the lack of diverse perspectives in international climate discourse. They noted that developing regions, rural communities, and technical experts rarely have their realities represented. This is another area where market-driven approaches outperform rigid global governance — because free societies adapt solutions to local needs instead of imposing uniform restrictions that ignore economic and cultural differences. In the developing world especially, heavy-handed climate rules can stunt growth and entrench poverty. Free markets, by contrast, make energy affordable, expand opportunities, and empower communities to rise into prosperity — after which genuine environmental stewardship becomes both desirable and achievable.

A Stark Contrast: Anxious COP Youth vs. Clear-Thinking CFACT Collegians

If there was one thing the Youth Forum made unmistakably clear, it’s the level of crippling anxiety many UN-aligned young activists are carrying. Their comments were laced with fear — fear of the future, fear of collapse, fear that the world is spiraling beyond repair. It was a portrait of a generation who have been told from childhood that humanity is the planet’s enemy, and time is quickly running out. Meanwhile, CFACT Collegians across the U.S. and beyond present a powerful counterexample: a community of students who are optimistic, industrious, and grounded in reality. Instead of spiraling into existential dread, Collegians spend their time planting trees, countering the climate crisis narrative, cleaning up waterways, exploring energy solutions, and engaging peers through creative outreach. They don’t catastrophize; they problem-solve. They don’t despair; they build. While UN youth plead for more bureaucracy and red tape, CFACT students roll up their sleeves and model what practical, science-based, free-market environmental stewardship looks like.

Perhaps the most revealing moment of the youth panel came during their closing remarks, where participants urged each other to “be the adults in the room” and pursue pragmatic solutions. Ironically, that’s exactly the mindset missing from COP’s leadership. Too often, these conferences elevate feelings over facts, ideology over engineering, and theatrics over technology. What results is a widening gap between soaring rhetoric and the actual conditions on the ground.

Their frustration should serve as a wake-up call. Young people do not want more bureaucracy, more restrictions, or more hollow declarations of climate “ambition.” They want solutions that work. If world leaders are serious about empowering the next generation, they must embrace the only framework proven to lift societies, improve environmental quality, and foster innovation: free markets, human ingenuity, and individual liberty.

That is where real climate leadership begins. And increasingly, it’s CFACT Collegians — not young UN bureaucrats in the making — who are leading the way.