Green activists don’t care how many people will die from zero fossil fuel use
By Paul Homewood
h/y Dennis Ambler
From the NY Post:
We endlessly hear the flawed assertion that because climate change is real, we should “follow the science” and end fossil fuel use.
We hear this claim from politicians who favor swift carbon cuts, and from natural scientists themselves, as when the editor-in-chief of Nature insists “The science is clear — fossil fuels must go.”
The assertion is convenient for politicians, because it allows them to avoid responsibility for the many costs and downsides of climate policy, painting these as inevitable results of diligently following the scientific evidence.
But it is false because it conflates climate science with climate policy.
The story told by activist politicians and climate campaigners suggests that there is nothing but benefits to ending fossil fuels, versus a hellscape if nothing is done.
But the reality is that the world over the past centuries has improved dramatically — largely because of the immense increase in available energy that has come mostly from fossil fuels.
Life spans have more than doubled, hunger has dramatically declined, and incomes have increased ten-fold.
While the impact of climate change is likely negative, it is enormously exaggerated.
We constantly hear about extreme weather such as droughts, storms, floods and fires, although even the UN Climate Panel finds that evidence of them worsening cannot yet be documented for most of these.
But much more importantly, a richer world is much more resilient and hence much less affected by extreme weather.
The data shows that climate-related deaths from droughts, storms, floods and fires have declined by more than 97% from nearly 500,000 annually a century ago to less than 15,000 in the 2020s.
At the same time, the costs of the climate campaigners’ calls to “just stop” oil, gas and coal are massively downplayed.
Currently, the world gets almost four-fifths of all its energy from fossil fuels. If we quickly ended our use of fossil fuels, billions would die.
Four billion people — half the world’s population — entirely depend on food grown with synthetic fertilizer produced almost entirely by natural gas.
If we ended fossil fuels quickly, we would physically have no way to feed four billion people.
Add the billions of people dependent on fossil fuel heating in the winter time, along with the dependence on fossil fuels for steel, cement, plastics, and transport, and it is little wonder that one recent estimate shows abruptly ending fossil fuels would lead to 6 billion people dying in less than a year.
Most politicians suggest a slightly less rushed end to fossil fuels by 2050.
This slower pace would avoid billions of people dying outright, but the downsides are still immense.
The latest, peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows that efficiently reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 will cost a staggering $27 trillion per year on average over the century.
That is one-quarter of the world’s current GDP.
The same research shows that the benefits will be just a small fraction of that cost. The policy is prohibitively expensive for little benefit.
A good analogy is to consider the more than 1 million global traffic deaths annually.
Traffic — like climate change — is a man-made problem. Like climate change, it is something we could entirely solve.
If scientists were to only look at how to avoid the million traffic deaths, one solution would be to reduce speed limits everywhere to 3 mph.
If heavily enforced, this would almost entirely eliminate traffic deaths.
Of course, it would also almost entirely eliminate our economies and our productive lives.
We would laugh if politicians said we should “follow the science” and stop traffic deaths by reducing speeds to 3 mph.
As we do with traffic, in the climate debate we should take a sensible approach. This means focusing on short-term adaptation to build resilience, and long-term investment in R&D for green energy.
Innovation must drive the price of reliable, green energy down below fossil fuels, eventually making sure everyone can switch to low-carbon alternatives.
When politicians tell us they are “following the science,” they use the claim to shut down open discussion of the enormous costs of their policies.
“The science” informs us about the problem, but is not the arbiter of solutions.
Democracies are.
Sudden, dramatic cuts in fossil fuel consumption will have huge downsides — which their backers would rather ignore.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The Greens want people to die prematurely. Their utimate objective is to reduce the world population by many billions.
I’m not sure its ‘Greens’ as much as the 0.1% ‘billionaires’ who want complete control over the planet with a docile population of 0.5bn or so. ‘Greens are useful idiots in the grand scheme, which is multifaceted.
I agree with you 100%. Green = naive.
I am not a green meaning not anti fossil fuel and anti industry, quite the reverse, but I do want the population to be reduced to its level when I was born: about 2.25 Billion.
So, if green policy will cause that crash then good, it is the only game in town to save the biosphere, any alternative causes people to shout at me as a Malthusian. I am certainly one of those on everything he said (and he inspired Darwin as you lmow).
So, bash on greens: you are completely wrong about CO2 but by accident you will help achieve my objective.
Malcolm, I assume there some kind of dark humour in your comment, as the alternative is to think you supported the likes of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and Kim etc in trying to reduce the World’s population. Because, how else would you achieve it?
Thank you Harry, you make my point exactly: I said “there is no other game in town” which meant none of the methods you list. Of course I don’t.
But my eyes are wide open to the horrors that the greens are starting us towards like mass starvation, resource wars, disease, etc. They will certainly happen we have no choice, look out of the window right now, I might be a victim of course but will probably die naturally soon.
What do you suggest?
Harry, in a more realistic frame of mind.
Rather than looking back at my childhood being the ideal global population and climate, my opinion is that global population will start reducing when every nation on Earth reaching prosperity levels enjoyed by only a few nations currently. Population growth stabilises within three generations, and then population declines unless boosted by immigration. This is despite some religions being hostile to birth control.
In someways using “renewable energy” will be counter productive without a conmensurate removal of modern medicine and disease prevention. When you’re poor you have to increase the number of wage earners for a variety of reasons.
Glen, you are right: prosperity reduces the need for large families and decent healthcare ensures the survival of smaller families.
it’s interesting that fossil-fuel use over the last 150 years has produced, in the West, at least, the very change that Greens abhor: extended life-spans and individual wealth. Greens are nothing more that homophobes (no, not that meaning!)
Malcolm, I appreciate the clarification. Spot on.
Glen says global population will reduce when prosperity becomes more equal – absolutely agree. But I don’t think that requires everyone to get to our level of supposed “prosperity”. As the great Rosling pointed out, “third world” countries are dramatically reducing their rate of reproduction as they are already living much improved lives, and are probably at least as satisfied with their lot as we are.
A minor comment, Glen – you are talking about global population and its decline “unless boosted by immigration”. Not sure that’s on the cards quite yet!
It most certainly is not ‘the only game in town’! Have you not heard about the replication concerns and the declining human populations of most continents apart from Africa?
and don’t forget that CO2 is not the climate driver
“Green activists don’t care how many people will die from zero fossil fuel use“
That isn’t a fault; it’s a feature.
While the impact of climate change is likely negative
[citation needed]
I find it disappointing that Lomborg is still a convinced CO2 global warmer but you have to take what you can get.
Traffic — like climate change — is a man-made problem. Like climate change, it is something we could entirely solve.
But earlier he has said:
But the reality is that the world over the past centuries has improved dramatically — largely because of the immense increase in available energy that has come mostly from fossil fuels.
Life spans have more than doubled, hunger has dramatically declined, and incomes have increased ten-fold.
While the impact of climate change is likely negative, it is enormously exaggerated.
We constantly hear about extreme weather such as droughts, storms, floods and fires, although even the UN Climate Panel finds that evidence of them worsening cannot yet be documented for most of these.
But much more importantly, a richer world is much more resilient and hence much less affected by extreme weather.
All this whilst CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have increased year on year, notably from Asia.
What’s not to like?
(By the by, Oil isn’t a fossil fuel):
“Oil Does Not Come From Dinosaurs or Dead Vegetation” WUWT
“Climate change” is a massive globalist hoax and it’s a waste of time trying to reason with puppet Uniparty politicians. The electorate now has a once-in-many-decades chance to vote them all out of office.
https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax
Hmm…with the only 2 political parties likely to gain any parliamentary seats both committed to climate change, the “climate emergency” and net zero, how exactly can the electorate vote out of office the climate zealots?
Innovation must drive the price of reliable, green energy down below fossil fuels, eventually making sure everyone can switch to low-carbon alternatives.
Unicorn thinking by Lomborg there. Yes, let’s try and make water flow uphill. You can use nuclear, hydro and geothermal for powering the grid but what about transportation? Domestic heating? Industrial processes?
Add this Lomborg statement to the what-abouts: ‘Four billion people — half the world’s population — entirely depend on food grown with synthetic fertilizer produced almost entirely by natural gas.‘
Greenies truly, madly, deeply believe the forecasts of doom. They have no time for the experience of others, or documented history. History is so … Yesterday.
“While the impact of climate change is likely negative, it is enormously exaggerated.
We constantly hear about extreme weather such as droughts, storms, floods and fires, although even the UN Climate Panel finds that evidence of them worsening cannot yet be documented for most of these.”
Global warming and an increase in CO2 levels is an unalloyed good for the planet. Global cooling into another ice age or little ice age would be disastrous for life on the planet.
Yes, the IPCC WG1 Table 12 in Chapter 12 shows that no signal for climate change can be found other than some slight warming leading some loss of ice and snow. This is quite logical as warming the poles/upper latitudes reduces the temperature difference between them and the equator and hence reduces the energy available for bad weather.
The Climate Cult is a Malthusian adherence cult who want to reduce the Worls population by 95%, to a “more acceptable” 500million (as long as they are not in the dead column, and obviously in charge).
While the impact of climate change is likely negative
No-one knows what the impact of climate change will be, but there are some guesses.
No-one knows how the climate will change, but there are some guesses.
…. who want to reduce the Worls population by 95%,
The world can feed billions more people, but this needs competent management of agriculture.