How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero?

[rangerrebew]

How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero?
BY CHRIS MORRISON 19 APRIL 2024 7:00 AM

BBC oddball Chris Packham has hit back at claims reported on Neil Oliver‘s GB News show that half the world’s population could die if Net Zero was implemented in full. “So Ofcom can you please explain how you allow this utter BS to be broadcast,” he wails. Running to Ofcom would appear to be a trade protection measure – millions will die has been the tried and trusted modus operandi of climate catastrophist Chris for decades.

This would appear to be the same Chris Packham who told the Telegraph in October 2010 that there were too many humans on the planet, and “we need to do something about it”. In 2020, he informed the Daily Mail  that “quite frankly” smallpox, measles, mumps and malaria were there “to regulate our population”. Over his broadcast career, untroubled by Ofcom interest, Packham has claimed mass extinctions of all life on Earth unless humans stop burning hydrocarbons. Of course there are those who point out that these popular mass extinctions only seem to exist in computer models. Hydrocarbons, meanwhile, have led to unprecedented prosperity and health, unimaginable to previous generations, across many parts of a planet that now supports a sustainable population of humans numbering eight billion.

Of course Net Zero is not going to kill four billion people because Net Zero is never going to happen. Day-by-day, support is crumbling around the world as the political collectivisation project, supported by increasingly discredited computer-modelled opinions, is starting to fall apart as it bumps into the hard rock of reality. History teaches us that tribes that grow weak and decadent are easy prey for their stronger neighbours. But the suggestion that four billion will die if Net Zero should ever be inflicted on global populations is worth examining. After all, it is likely to be true.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/19/how-many-billions-of-people-would-die-under-net-zero/

[Free Vulcan]

They're hoping for 95%.

[GtHawk]

They're hoping for 95%.

I was going to say those pushing it would say as many as it takes, except for them of course.

[Smokin Joe]

They're hoping for 95%.

They only 'need' 93% to hit their Georgia Guidestones goal.

Yeah, more than 9 out of 10 people.

Without oil? How are they going to farm? Or are they really going to eat bugs?

[Free Vulcan]

They only 'need' 93% to hit their Georgia Guidestones goal.

Yeah, more than 9 out of 10 people.

Without oil? How are they going to farm? Or are they really going to eat bugs?

We'll go back to farms that are 100 acres or less, probably far less, and alot done by hand and/or very little fuel, likely home made.

[roamer_1]

Without oil? How are they going to farm? Or are they really going to eat bugs?

Bugs eat a lot. What do you feed them?

[The_Reader_David]

Approached correctly, net zero would produce no excess deaths, but that would entail a crash program to build lots of nuclear power plants, only decarbonizing the electrical grid, and planting trees to offset the continued use of fossil fuels for transportation, not this nonsense with "renewables" (i.e. direct and indirect solar energy).

Of course, net zero is almost certainly a pointless goal, as (1) new research suggests that the heat retaining capacity of CO2 is fully saturated, and adding more won't do anything to increase temperatures, (2) the C13 signature of fossil fuel derived CO2 cannot be detected in atmospheric samples, and (3) paleoclimatological records suggest CO2 concentration is a trailing indicator of global temperature, suggesting the excess CO2 is simply cooking out of the oceans.

On the other hand, building lots of nuclear power plants and saving fossil fuels for transport would be useful to adapt to climate changes of any sort (continued warming whatever the cause) or a new Ice Age if the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic shuts down (which is what happened after the warming trend at the end of the previous interglacial period).

[Smokin Joe]

Approached correctly, net zero would produce no excess deaths, but that would entail a crash program to build lots of nuclear power plants, only decarbonizing the electrical grid, and planting trees to offset the continued use of fossil fuels for transportation, not this nonsense with "renewables" (i.e. direct and indirect solar energy).

Of course, net zero is almost certainly a pointless goal, as (1) new research suggests that the heat retaining capacity of CO2 is fully saturated, and adding more won't do anything to increase temperatures, (2) the C13 signature of fossil fuel derived CO2 cannot be detected in atmospheric samples, and (3) paleoclimatological records suggest CO2 concentration is a trailing indicator of global temperature, suggesting the excess CO2 is simply cooking out of the oceans.

On the other hand, building lots of nuclear power plants and saving fossil fuels for transport would be useful to adapt to climate changes of any sort (continued warming whatever the cause) or a new Ice Age if the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic shuts down (which is what happened after the warming trend at the end of the previous interglacial period).

We have abundant coal. Set a standard for stack emissions, meet it, stop the moving target crap. It isn't suitable for motor vehicle fuel unless you use it to make synfuels, but it is dandy for electrical generation, and plentiful. We have a lot of tools in the box, and should use them all.