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.
The four billion dead noted on GB News came from a remark made by Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace. Interviewed on Fox News, he said: “If we ban fossil fuels, agricultural production would collapse. People will begin to starve, and half the population will die in a very short period of time”. Four billion dead if artificial fertiliser is banned is not ‘BS’, it is an almost guaranteed outcome. In a recent science paper, Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively noted that “eliminating fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertiliser and pesticides will create worldwide starvation”. With the use of nitrogen fertiliser, crop yields around the world have soared in recent decades and natural famines, as opposed to those local outbreaks caused by humans, have largely disappeared.
Much of the luxury middle class Net Zero obsession is based on a seeming hatred of human progress. It is a campaign to push back the benefit of mass industrialisation, although it is doubtful that many of the ardent promoters think the drastic reductions in standards of living will apply to them. It is narcissism on stilts and based on an almost complete ignorance of how the food in their faddy diets arrives on their plates. It shows a complete disregard for the central role that hydrocarbons play in their lives. It is based on a profound distaste for almost any modern manufacturing process. These days, they do not know people who actually make things, and when they meet them they often dislike them. Nutty Guardianista George Monbiot recently tweeted that ending animal farming is as important as leaving fossil fuels in the ground. “Eating meat, milk and eggs is an indulgence the planet cannot afford,” he added.
Leaving fossil fuels in the ground will mean the following products will largely disappear.
Circulated on social media and recently published by Paul Homewood, the illustration is a wake-up call to the importance of hydrocarbons. Without it, humans would struggle to make many medicines and plastics. Similar difficulties would be found in the manufacture of common products such as clothing, food preservatives, cleaning products and soft contact lens.
Alec Epstein, the author of the best-selling book Fossil Future, agrees that Net Zero policies by 2050 would be “apocalyptically destructive”, and have in fact already been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented. A reference here, perhaps, to the wicked policies conducted by Western banks and elites in refusing to loan money to build hydrocarbon-fuelled water treatment plants in the poorer parts of the developing world. Billions still lack the cost-effective energy they need to live lives of abundance and safety, notes Epstein. Many people in developing countries still use wood and dung for cooking. Like Happer and Lindzen, he believes that if Net Zero is followed, “virtually all the world’s eight billion people will plunge into poverty and premature death”.
Much of what is planned is hiding in plain sight. The C40 group, funded by wealthy billionaires and chaired by London mayor Sadiq Khan, has investigated World War 2 style rationing with a daily meat allowance of 44g. Reduced private transport and massive restrictions on air travel have all been considered. Labour party member Khan has already made a cracking start on his elite paymasters’ concerns having recently driven many of the cars of the less affluent off London roads with specialist charging penalties.
Honesty rules the day at the U.K. Government-funded UK FIRES operation where Ivory Tower academics produce gruesomely frank reports showing that Net Zero would cut available energy by around three quarters. They assume, rightly, that there is no realistic technology currently available, or likely in the foreseeable future, to back up power sourced from the intermittent breezes and sun beams. No flying, no shipping, drastic cuts in meat consumption and no home heating are all discussed. A ruthless purge of modern building material is also proposed with traditional building supplies replaced by new materials such as “rammed earth”
A move back to primitivism is also foreshadowed by a recent United Nations report which suggested building using mud bricks, bamboo and forest ‘detritus’. It might be thought that mud and grass huts will hardly be enough to deter unfriendly foreign hordes that hove into future view on the horizon. And no point in asking the last person to turn out the lights, because there won’t be electricity anyway.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I would crowd fund for GBN to run a TV programme to send CP and other nut zero zealots to a commune for 6mths with no electricity, gas, oil, coal or mains drainage.
It must be during our winter months and on the west coast for maximum rainfall.
They could film using an overhead drone and we could have a head of letttuce to see which survived longest!
Or send them to live in a mud hut in the middle of Africa where they had to burn dung for heat and cooking, and where they only had a dollar a day spending money. They would need to walk 2 miles to get some water and carry it back on top of their heads. They would have no defence against Malaria and other vector borne diseases, and their life expectancy would drop to 35
A great plan but I think you are maybe a tad generous with the pocket money!
Apparently a dollar a day is about average income for the most impoverished in the world. I wouldn’t want to exaggerate for political purposes as that would make me as pathetic as the climate alarmists.
Statistically that’s correct, if you have up to a dollars worth of change in your pocket, you are among the top 15% of the worlds richest people!
A very sensible idea. The added bonus is that given their ages the likes of Packham and Monbiot would be past their life expectancy on the day of arrival. How unfortunate.
It’s an amazing how shows like GB news get amplified with such a small following in real time. Expensive to produce clickbait it seems.
At a more practical level, looking at the illustration, a shortage of breast implants is on the cards!
The Georgia Guidestones – now since pulled down – said 500 million humans should exist. So 7 billion to be culled.
Can the idiot Packham and his entire Greentard cult please lead by example and kill themselves. I figure half the pop is brain dead – members of the Climate-Rona-Trans cults (3 for 1 membership deals available). Reduce the pop please by reducing yourselves through say humusation or a pagan burning. I will bring some firewood to make sure it goes to plan.
Many are doing so voluntarily by not having children. This is why there are so many miserable women in their 50s campaigning about climate.
With purple and pink hair. Saving Gaia is their religion. Hating humans including themselves, their philosophy.
Interesting how the Guide Stones were just demolished after that explosive attack. So many questions, few answers including the real reason they were put there in 1980.
Tw*ts like Packham are used by the tw*ts in power to threaten the proles on a daily basis. They threaten us, they threaten our loved ones, they threaten our children. Isn’t it well past time that we let these tw*ts know what that feels like?
Send them all the eco zealots camping to Scotland in winter without fossil fuels. Once all dead the west would be infinitely improved, even the “climate crisis” could not save them.
Send them all to either Northern Canada or Siberia, there’s lots of room, very little civiisation and modern living and hated technologies and lots of natural resources. And good riddance!
And only wearing the clothing they can make themselves out of local resources. When they are freezing and starving I wonder how many would refuse to eat meat or wear the skins.
Notice the Eco Socialists like Packham think there are too many people in the world. But they don’t mean all of their friends and family. They don’t mean their work colleagues. They don’t even mean Europeans or Australians, or Americans or Canadians. What they mean is that there are too many poor people in poor countries (Africa) that would really like to burn coal and gas to generate electricity. But to the rabid environmentalists in the wealthy west there is nothing more disturbing than the one billion poor people who currently don’t have electricity and who die young of preventable diseases using up the worlds resources to become prosperous like we in the wealthy west have done for a few hundred years. That is what these eco fundamentalists really mean when they say there are too many people.
We hear so much about the holocaust but what killed more that or Obamas forcing the world bank to ban investment in coal in Africa in 2010? Almost certainly the latter, slaughter of Africans on an industrial scale from a mixed race president permanently branding his “black” credentials.
wink
Yep, OK, but it will just be the Europeans and Americans that decide to have children. It is mostly in the third world where birth rates are the highest because when you are poor you have no education, no birth control and you do not live an organised life. That all changes when you get prosperous, and the only way poor people can develop and thrive is to use the same fuels as we did —Coal Oil and gas. But these people are coerced into leaving these fuels in the ground and we send them a few quid for turbines and solar panels. —A diabolical disgrace. This is the world the Packmans of this world promote for the world’s poor.—Eternal poverty.
I disagree with that, I actually think he does include Europeans/Americans etc – the plebs, the non-believers, right-wingers and Trump supporters, basically anyone who doesn’t think exactly the same as him and isn’t rushing around shouting about the environmental catastrophe while essentially maintaining their own luxurious lifestyle.
Yup. He should just stick to talking about Birds.
In cuckoo land
While you and are disagreeing around detail the Liberal Progressive machine keeps rolling on. ——-It is the same with the climate change issue. While people all argue about the “science”, the pretend to save the planet people just get on with their Net Zero tyranny because we are all busy arguing with each other.
‘How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero?’I rather thought that was the intention.
Correct. Nut zero is the means by which the world population will be reduced.
Film: One By One comes to mind. Cheaply made but on the money. Rik Mayall’s last film i believe.
The most important commodity for the welfare of people is ENERGY. Net Zero removes affordable reliable energy and replaces it with unaffordable unreliable energy. You don’t require a million dollar computer model to tell you what is likely to happen next. —It is perfectly obvious that without that reliable affordable energy of coal and gas that living standards will drop, health will deteriorate, life expectancy will fall, and people will DIE younger than they currently do. ——-All because of NET ZERO and politicians pretending to “save the planet”
Yep. Nailed it.
What you need is a billion dollar computer to be more accurately wrong!
The UK MET Office spend increasing amounts of money on Super Computers to get their predictions wrong to more decimal points.
And how, pray tell is building a 3,200 acre solar farm in green belt rural Oxfordshire, saving the planet?
Yes except computer models don’t make “predictions”. ——-Various speculations, assumptions and guesses are put into a climate model and out the other end comes “projections”, which are evidence of NOTHING
Yes you’re right, they call them predictions, we call them BS.
I want to know who disliked your comment.
I think it might be the same person who dislikes everything that questions energy and climate policies. I believe they longer contribute here. But we will see. ——-I am happy if people disagree though because that is what people are meant to do. Unfortunately when it comes to the issue of climate governments and the bought and paid for media refuse to enter into any discussion about it incase it puts those policies at risk. ——The BBC point blank refuse to discuss this issue and they seem to think this is a black and white issue. They think there are only two points of view (1) There is climate change, and (2) There isn’t climate change. So they have decided that if you ask questions you are in the second category.
Mummy, that nasty man on GB News said some hurty words. Make him stop it. Waaaaaah!
Packham often appears on TV wearing the latest hi-tec outdoor clothing and footwear (like the fleece and waterproof jacket in the picture), probably all with TOG ratings, ‘loft’ quotients, breathability factors etc. Wonder how he thinks they’ve been developed & what he thinks they’re made of? – coz it surely ain’t cotton and wool.
In 2020, he informed the Daily Mail that “quite frankly” smallpox, measles, mumps and malaria were there “to regulate our population”.
Presumably, then, Packham was against all the Covid madness? And doesn’t agree with vaccination against the above diseases? He should be welcoming another method of regulation (just as long as it’s happening to someone else). But I’m betting he was all for “if it saves one life” and all the associated cr*p. Surely, if the man made climate catastrophe really is as catastrophic as he claims, then there is no better example of natural population regulation?
Seems that’s what the “vaccines” are for!
Reminds me of BBC 4 yesterday morning discussing the smoking ban. This campaigner against fags said….If cigarettes were invented today, they wouldn’t pass all the health regulations. I thought to myself, they could just indemnify the fags and make them mandatory, job done!
I actually enjoyed Chris Packhams Earth TV series (ignoring the 5 minute monologue at the end of each episode on us wrecking the planet). I found it difficult to take his final narrative in the face of 5billion years of planet evolution, with ice ages and global warming periods, almost extinction of all plant life due to a lack of CO2, with mankind only being around for the last 5 minutes ( ok, 50,000 years)
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/pollution-and-an-air-of-confusion/
A suitable accompaniment to the article. Looks like Wales is to be the test centre for testing “clean air” measures. As the article makes clear most air pollution these days occurs in the home.
Anybody would think we were living with Victorian era daily smogs. Tuppence ha’penny fascists.
Climate nonce (thanks to Joey Barton)
It isn’t a claim. It is its very purpose.
There has for centuries, been those theorising about how many people the Earth can support. Well, when I was born, there were 3bn. Now there are 8bn. Everyone gets fed (except where it is politically expedient for them not to), and everyone got richer in the intervening 60 years, living longer lives enjoying greater abundance of everything.
Mud Huts. Reminds me of an Ed Stafford survival episode where he went to Norway during the winter and had to make a shelter, find wood for a fire, and keep warm. It was interesting. He talked about the type of fires you should use; star shaped, or long 6ft fires for maximum heat. He was not far from an estuary to the sea that brought plenty of sea snails etc for fat & energy. I recommend Ed Stafford survival documentaries for all that see the dangers and food shortages associated with Net 0 (Agenda 2030).
Whilst I still actively campaign against Net Zero, EVs heat pumps and ‘renewables’ I’m at an age where I’m beginning to think if this is the world younger people want, let them have it. The only way they’ll learn is to be impoverished by their own actions and unable to blame anyone else.
Let them have a world where they are poor, socially and financially, and living in mud huts with the millions of immigrants they also support. They call themselves ‘progressive’ I see their actions as entirely regressive.