Climate Change: Mass Killing – Simple And With Impunity

Posted: August 7, 2011 in Sustainable Development
Tags: , , , , , ,

“I have severe doubts that we can support even two billion if they all live like citizens of the U.S. The world can support a lot more vegetarian saints than Hummer-driving idiots.”
~ Paul Ehrlich

There is an interesting post about estimated amount of years for each country to cease their green house gases emission. Most of the countries have to do it in the following 10 years… And there are loud words about “climate racism” and “climate genocide” with reference to some Climate genocide. They asseverate that

“Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a Climate Genocide involving deaths of about 10 billion people this century, mostly non-Europeans, this including about 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Already 18 million people die avoidably every year in Developing countries (minus China) due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease and man-made global warming is already clearly worsening this global avoidable mortality holocaust. However 10 billion avoidable deaths due to global warming this century will yield an average global annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year”

…errr… SO WHAT?!!!… Look around guys! There are more than 7 billions of us at this poor planet and we are consuming it. More people means need of more resources for food, more fields, more coffins. There is an OVERPOPULATION and you don’t have to be genius to notice it! If so called Global Warming or Climate Change will lead to major human population decrease than it’s a blessing, not a blight!

Again: “…Climate Genocide involving deaths of about 10 billion people this century, mostly non-Europeans…”. Of course most of them won’t be Europeans! Look at the map (taken form here):

Most Populous Countries


Then take a look at this graph (taken from here):

World Population Growth for Developing and Industrialised Regions

Who is responsible for overpopulation? – Developing countries… I assume that it would be not fair if “…the most of them would be Europeans…” If by the end of the century there will only 0.5 billion people remain, than we will just fit to our planet’s capacity for the humans (taking into account that some of us consume more than others).

Back to the so called climate change. I’m environmentalist, so I’m pleased that there are a lot of activities about ceasing of the green house gases emission. But on the other hand I’m scientist, not a climate scientist, but environmental one (I’m ecologist and geographer), so I my opinion is that CO2 is not the threat we must fight with. I have some scientific subscriptions and it is always painful for me to see that the major part of the world’s environment research are dedicated to this “problem” of climate change. People could do the real job, but it is easier to find founding for the “climate change” research… A fellow misanthrope wrote a nice post about this political game. And you should see the video on that page.

Finally here you are another site of an open-minded person about overpopulation (with some awesome quotes by the way).

P.S. Now I wonder whether I should turn off my computer at night or not… Seems that in the long term it will be better for environment to let it work 😉

  1. rogerthesurf says:


    If we follow the IPCC’s demands of a 60% decrease in CO2 emissions there WILL be a genocide/mass starvation as you describe.

    Not because of global warming you understand but because of economic collapse.

    That economic collapse has already started as this academic study of Spain shows.

    As well as the dangerous effects that we are all being led into (Spain is just a little ahead) some simple economic logic provides some further insight into the economic consequences. of which the IPCC says nothing.

    A simple analysis of what is likely to happen should the world decide to accede to the IPCC’s CO2 emission targets. About a 60% reduction in fossil fuel usage.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%. (And that is conservative considering the inelasticity of fossil fuel demand)

    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while
    normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

    This may also help one to see what part the Oil/Energy corporates may play in things. Quite the opposite of what Greenpeace claims.



    • Interesting opinion, Roger. High fossil fuel prices, reduction of the car usage… That’s splendid! Less cars is just what we need – can you breath normally nowadays? I can’t, and it’s because of cars – people could use a tram or subway, but for them it is cool to spend couple of hours in jams, pollute atmosphere and enjoy their awesomeness… There is no way to justify a need have a car for every human. Companies should have their cars, and people should use public transport instead.

      Green jobs policy lead to job loss… Well of course fossil fuel related people will loss their jobs. But it is normal price for the progress. Implementation of the machines in industry instead of manual work also caused a job loss… People have to adapt, take a training in something else, so it is not a problem, especially if fossil fuel companies will start to pay to every citizen of the country which resources they are extracting. We have to make them pay to us, because fossil fuels are not man-made and are not renewable, so if they dare to sell it, they must share with others, because it is common goods. So if they will start to share, a lot of people could live without job at all! It would be faire.

      • rogerthesurf says:

        With all due respect, I think you should read what I said once again, read the link and ponder a little more.
        For instance, if the cost of fossil fuels goes through the roof it will effect every part of the economy, not in the least the cost of food and other essentials as well as generally make businesses bankrupt. (Just think where jobs come from). etc

        If you had read and understood the link, you would not have written your last paragraph.


  2. No, actually I totally understand what you are talking about. But take into account that I’m an environmentalist and a misanthrope and I’m in opposition to the current world order where control over fossil fuels means control over the world. I would like fossil fuels related corporations to have as little income as possible, because only thing that they care is PROFIT so the sacrifice environment to have more than they could spend in their entire lives. Don’t you remember BP’s oil spill? That is the real prise of fossil fuels. There are thousands of such accidents each year (it’s good that they are usually not as harmful as this).

    I understand perfectly where high prises will lead us. Yes It will be tough time but let’s not to stick to the bad, we should be optimistic! Fossil fuel reduction will lead us to decreasing of fossil fuel related impact which is to my mind is most significant amongst others if we will trace it from the cradle to the grave. And it will stimulate implementation of the green technology. And I want to say, that I was impressed when I saw solar panels used in Finland(!) and it is economic-efficient in the long term! So if Finland is able to use solar energy, why don’t such countries as Australia for example use it instead of fossil-fuels instead!

    I’m sure you’re following modern green technologies. Aren’t you impressed with it? For instance I recall an article in National Geographic (several months ago) about using solar panels instead fossil fuel engines for Irrigation in Egypt. And solar panels were proved to be cheaper!

    From the economic (and common selfish) point of view people will use cheaper solution, so when fossil fuels prises are low they do not bother themselves with “green” alternatives. This means high fossil fuel prices will lead to broader implementation of environmental friendly technologies.

    As to economic collapse because of refusal of fossil fuel. Well let’s ask ourselves why our economic will collapse because of it? Because we build it in this not very smart way with too high dependence on the fossil fuels. So let’s rebuild it the right way, because we have alternatives nowadays!

    And the final point of job loss in the broad scale because of businesses collapse. I assume such argument as a sucker punch – no less. This is a black mail! It is often used when there are no other arguments for the environmentally harmful activities. Here is the recent example from Russia: a logging company in court sued the local administration and got for exploitation 2 forest parcels which are essential for the population of tigers! But it wasn’t enough for them – now they want another one! So which argument they used? Yes – that they are providing job for the locals and employees have to eat! But it was found out that this company hiring more Chinese employees than local Russian, and at the parcels they are already exploiting amount of illegal logging almost equal to officially permitted amount for this company – so they just do not look after their parcels and complains that there is not enough timber for them!

    So when I hear about job loss argument – I assume that the person using it is affiliated with the according business.

    IMHO: 1) global economic dependence on fossil fuels is dangerous and we were witnessing it’s evidences (crises) for a several decades;
    2) fossil fuels if we will trace it from the cradle to the grave cause the most harmful impact to environment at global scale;
    3) fossil fuels dependence and usage must be reduced to a minimum;
    4) argument of the economic collapse because of the refusal of the fossil fuels usage is a sucker punch of affiliated persons, because all negative affects can be avoided (there are enough of smart people who will guide us though this step by step), and the most important – FOSSIL FUELS WILL END UP ANY WAY, SO THIS “COLLAPSE” IS INEVITABLE 😉 Face it – we must act now, not to push the burden to the next generations!

    • rogerthesurf says:

      “And the final point of job loss in the broad scale because of businesses collapse. I assume such argument as a sucker punch – no less. ”

      Tough, because if you had any clues about economics, you would understand that this is no sucker punch.
      If there is any sucker punch around it is the myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming. (If you don’t think that is a sucker punch, try finding an academic paper that proves the causation link between CO2 and the climate).

      Nevertheless, mass population decline through economic collapse is definitely on the cards so as a misanthrope you are likely to be happy. (If you don’t starve as well).
      Look at Spain right now. Bankrupt government, job losses and unlikely to be any lasting dole. And Spain is only a start. What about Italy, Ireland, Portugal etc.?

      BTW did you pick up the fact that AGW is beneficial to fossil fuel producers?



  3. Let’s get easy on it. I do not support the theory of СО2 guilt for the climate change. I think that natural processes are in charge here. Nevertheless I admit that there are evidences of the significant human impact at the local scale: for example catastrophic flooding caused by deforestation; or a well known effect of the city as a “heat island”. And it is possible (I haven’t seen according papers) that quantity is transforming to quality, i.e. changes at the local scale can affect global climate (but it isn’t necessary a main driver) – it is possible. So to my mind people affect global climate somehow, mainly through landscape change, and CO2 is the last to blame. So I would agree with the scientist who would develop a model which would demonstrate this.

    >Nevertheless, mass population decline through economic collapse is definitely on the cards so as >a misanthrope you are likely to be happy
    >Look at Spain right now. Bankrupt government, job losses and unlikely to be any lasting dole. >And Spain is only a start. What about Italy, Ireland, Portugal

    The report about Spain has only one angle of view, and actually there are no evidence of the strong influence of the renewable energy introduction on current economic crisis in this country.

    Do you want to say that whole economic crisis was caused by the renewable energy? That the only cause of the fossil-fuel prices grows is solar panels and wind turbines? I live in Russia – the major oil and gas exporter and there are no solar panels, no wind turbines, no mini-hydro (because the government is in the pocket of oil and gas corporations) here, but the prices for the fossil fuel are constantly growing. They are growing because people are greedy, government is totally corrupted and actually unskilled. Do you know what are incomes of the employed people (they are lucky – they have job) who live outside the major cities? – About 170-200 euro per month, and food prices are close to these in Europe. People do not starve here, just because they spent all their incomes on food and only rich people (or these with power) become richer here. So economic crises is not related to “green energy” or “green jobs” it is related to greed for the green paper…

    This situation in Spain (as well as in any other country) and other countries is the result of poor and corrupted governance and faults in economic principals. That’s it. No magic, no green conspiracy, just corruption.

    The prices for the fossil fuels will keep growing because more and more people consume it. Prices will stay high whether “green energy” will rise of not. So we will starve…

    What about inevitable end of the fossil-fuels era? This is important. Will you argue with that? Will you argue that if the fossil-fuels era will end up, than we should be responsible prepare for this now?

  4. rogerthesurf says:

    Thanks for your reply and clarification of where you are coming from.

    “Do you want to say that whole economic crisis was caused by the renewable energy?”

    No I do not say that, but it is caused by the western worlds continual slide to the left. That is the increasing expectation of people in expecting services from their governments in return for ever increasing taxation. This includes so called “Green Job” subsidies and government investment in “green” infrastucture.

    This is the point of the study on Spain.

    You did notice that they calculate for every government created position, 2.2 jobs are lost from the economy in general? This does not include the opportunity cost of the loss of the green employee’s skills and services to the real economy.

    This fact also applies to taxation in general as well as taxation to create other subsidies.
    If you understand this, it is easy to see how easy it is for a left leaning government to shoot itself in its foot.

    In Russia it appears, unlike PR China, that the free market has not been embraced. China’s economy is absolutely smoking and I tell you that they are as free market thinking as anyone in the world nowadays.
    Sadly your economy has not been left to the free market and this corruption you speak of which is basically a fight over power and control of your country and its wealth I believe is the reason.
    It takes a benovelent and principled government to devolve its power and let the economy get on with things without hinderance.

    “What about inevitable end of the fossil-fuels era?”
    Well what I am saying is At all costs keep governments out of any change over from fossil fuels.

    The best way is to let the open market to do it and that needs no intervention.

    Some time ago, I wrote this about fossil fuels.

    “It is true that there is a limited fossil fuel supply and over time scarcity must make the price rise and if we wish to retain our mode of civilisation we need to find some way of coping with this. However, TIME is the key word.

    There are various estimates of the time left until fossil fuels run out, and I take a fairly jaundiced view of the estimates having been through two “oil shocks” in the ”70′s and ’80′s where we were told that it was running out already.

    However the current estimates are about 40 years for oil, 62 years for natural gas and 224 years for coal.

    If governments did nothing, and unfortunately governments have a way of exacerbating economic problems, (try reading Milton Freidman if you think that is too radical a statement), the price of fuel will rise steadily and I suspect converting coal to liquid fuel and gas will still be less expensive than any green technologies so far mooted, so the price will most likely rise and level out once this process becomes viable. (NB every rise in oil is currently reflected in just about every activity and product we consume)

    So we have at least 100 years to adjust to the rising price of energy and change to non fossil fuels.

    This is not to say that there will be no hardship or radical change in our civilisation.

    If the IPCC and governments have their way we have less than 20 years to curtail most fossil fuel usage..

    I think this answers your question. I agree a change is inevitable over time, but force a change prematurely and artificially on this massive scale and there will be cataclysmic recession with all the things I have already mentioned.
    As soon as alternative energy sources become economically feasible, it will be hard to keep the private investors away.

    Suggest you read “Free to Choose” Milton Friedman ISBN 0 14 022363 0



    • I can’t see how free market is able to save our environment. Seems you haven’t notice that it is a XXI century outside the window. All that ideas of the free market are obsolete just like religion! Sustainable development concept (united environmental, social and economic development) is an idea that will help us survive! Wake up and update your view! “Only triumph of capitalism is worse than its failure” – this is almost precise quote from the “When Corporations Rule The World” by David C. Korten. Why free market is bad? Just because it didn’t work and current global crisis was caused by liberalisation. True competition that needed for free market is unique and possible only for the lesser companies. Liberal capitalism doesn’t work and cause nothing but suffer to 99% of people and only 1% get richer and more powerful.

      And another recent example of the free market corruption was provided by “The Yes Men Save The World” documentary (here is my post about it). As to another century of fossil fuels extraction – this not only means that every one will depend on will of the exporters, but it also mean another century of Deepwater Horizons i.e. another century of irreparable damage to environment and public health. Example of the liberalisation in gas industry in US was demonstrated in recent great documentary “Gasland” (here is my post about it) polluted water, ded environment, irreparable health damage – that is the price for liberalisation of economics. I doubt that you would like to drink contaminated water, breath polluted air and contemplate burning oil, but this is the price for the free market when everybody do whatever they want in competition with each other and try hard to reduce expenditures. Of course GDP will grow, but will it be really a good sigh?

      • rogerthesurf says:

        “Seems you haven’t notice that it is a XXI century outside the window. All that ideas of the free market are obsolete just like religion!”

        Well sorry mate, but the free market or if you like market forces, like pythagorus, simply do not go away just because they have been around for a while.

        I did prepare a more explanatory answer than this, but after I took it upon myself to read some of your other posts I simply can only say, you need to bone up on economics so you can form some better opinions.
        Especially bad was your post on the GDP measurement. Anyone with a few clues knows that GDP is only an indication of economic activity using reasonably accessable data, and never attempts to illustrate the whole picture.

        We used to have a loopy MP here called Marylin Waring who went off the deep end because the GDP did not include the contribution of women. Sounded very like your post.

        All I can suggest is that you read Milton Friedman thoroughly like I suggested and then start thinking again. Quite disappointed in you actually.



      • So you are disappointed in me… Oh, I bet you do))) This outcome was obvious to me since your fist comment which was provoked by misleading interpretation of the initial post or something… I saw it in the first place that your opinion would never be accepted from my point of view (do not forget that I’m an environmentalist, so environmental safety is the main priority to me, which makes me follower of the sustainable development concept).

        You pointed out that my education in economy are not as good as you would like to be. So that is true – I actually didn’t spend additional hours to study economy because nowadays hey teach you to accept free market and capitalism in general just because this point of view took the upper hand in XX century. These ideas are harmful to environment and you will not refute this even if you will spend the rest of your life in attempt to do so. The facts of environment contamination and degradation are obvious. You will never find an evidence that free market improved quality of the environment somewhere. There are no such evidence.

        I do not argue that free market is good for economy itself, but the economy is not the most important thing we should carry about. You do not wish to argue about free market and sustainable development because of my “ignorance”… Well, seems that you have found a nice excuse to quit discussion and save your face. If you will read the thread carefully this is far not the first subject you decided to omit 😉

        So that’s how it looks like to me: you haven’t really answered any of the questions related to environmental aspects of the free markets and fossil fuels issues, when I provided you with the most obvious evidences that free market fails to save environment (actually “market forces” do not even try to do so unless the governmental regulations demands it ). I’m not economist, but I have a vast experience in environmental safety and I saw almost every possible consequences of the economically driven decisions… And know what? I can’t sleep well at night because of the fact that the fate this planet lays in hands of economists who actually unable to assess goods provided by unharmed environment…

        Come back here if you will ever find the evidence that free marked improved quality of environment in some place, or the fossil fuels usage is better for environment (and don’t forget to bring life cycle assessment with you). I hope that someday you will start to thinking about sustainable development and how the theory of economics may support it.

  5. rogerthesurf says:

    You do well to worry,

    The choices are very limited indeed, but there are basically two options that might work.

    1. If the economy has a surplus, that is resources after every hungry person is fed and housed etc, there may be some resource available to clean up the place or

    2. Secondly, you could advocate reduction of the human population. Ted Turner says 2 billion is about the right number.

    Don’t see anyone fixing to lead by example though.

    Actually Turner does not understand that, unless he is going to employ slaves, with only 2 billion people in the world, there wont be enough goods and services to keep him in his accustomed standard of living.

    However an economic surplus is the key condition, without this nothing can ever be done.
    Hence the socialist regimes in the world have had by all accounts, a very poor environmental record indeed.

    Forget the government. The key is this economic surplus and is somehow everyone is prepared to spend it on the environment.



  6. rogerthesurf says:

    You have gone very silent.

    I am serious about the population reduction solution.

    Of course it is not an acceptable solution for most, and of course it could not ever be popular, but its not hard to find that it is a hidden agenda lurking behind AGW and green movements.

    EG. Mankind At The Turning Point published by the Club of Rome

    You can purchase it complete from Amazon or here is a synopsis.

    Not hard to figure that there is some relationship with the Club of Rome and the UN and the IPCC.

    So I am not the only one who is aware of the depopulation solution, but I do not see genocide or mass starvation at all acceptable. On the other hand, should we try and force “sustainable energy” solutions through taxpayers money, this is exactly the road to the above.

    Just on the news this morning, The EC is in trouble and the common currency (the Euro) is in danger of being dropped. I am hardly surprised as the EC has led the way using tax payers money and debt to try and adopt financially unsustainable “sustainable energy ” solutions.

    Ironical isn’t it. India and China are about to become the new world leaders because they generally are keeping things in perspective when it comes to tax payers money and government induced taxpayers debt.



    • Hey Roger,

      I had a small vacation and was away form the internet. Your last two comments are quite interesting and I have a lot to reply, but I will try to be brief.

      1. Sustainable energy solutions for the EU is the way to independence (and are desired by population). Russia for example use the pipe control as a tool for politics. And as I mentioned before – fossil fuels prices are not going down. So environmental friendly energy sources are highly desirable in EU.

      2. I absolutely agree with you about overpopulation – it is the main cause of constantly growing environmental impact. Genocide may be a “solution” in a short term, but the real solution is a demographic policy, which is strong only in China, and other countries seems not giving a shit. Also it is about education – educated people prefer to have less children. I believe that UN could bind the countries to develop adequate demographic policies. It’s a shame that UN care about food supply for Africa when they should supply the region with condoms. To my mind even 2 billions of people will be too much for the planet, 500 millions seems to be better.

      3. About sustainable development vs. free market. Your statement about surplus need for cleaning environment is questionable. Theoretically (but only from the economic point of view) you seem to be right, but once again… Do you eat or breathe the “surplus”? I don’t think so. “Surplus” is just a measurement of economy efficiency and only economy efficiency. You believe that surplus will help to clean environment, but it won’t: “can you replace the river” Roger? That was a citation from the Gasland documentary. Very interesting research titled “CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IRRESPONSIBILITY” (first link in google search for the title) demonstrates that companies do good things only to clean up their names. The problem is commonly accepted general aim of business – business must bring as much surplus as possible. But this aim have to be transformed to “business must bring as much surplus as possible while preserving an environment and providing social and cultural development”. One of the most disgusting example of surplus gaining activity is business on environmental impact assessment (at least in Russia) – companies in this business (as others) have to gain money for living and amount of the surpluses depends on the quantity and quality of clients, and in order to gain loyalty of the clients they assess the environmental impact in the way the clients will be happy – that everything is fine. One example – 50 cubic metres per day of the landfill leachate leaking into the ground was found acceptable during environmental impact assessment of the project for the landfill construction…
      Sustainable development and the common sense tells us that we have to concentrate not on cleaning up environment after fucking it up, but preserve the environment in the first place – so one have to spent money to preserve environment before he is producing something and not after he gained money and tried to hide the evidence of the damage caused to environment.

      Roger, I want you to understand that sustainable developement DO CARES ABOUT ECONOMY. Sustainable development just does not prefer economy over environment or society. Development of the economy is desirable but not with the price of degradation of the environment nor social degradation.

  7. rogerthesurf says:

    I honestly think you are dreaming, especially as you even contemplate genocide as a solution.

    As I said, there is no easy answer, of course the environment should be protected whenever possible, but seeing as how people starve in this world already, in my opinion, your ideas of sustainable development will simply result in more starvation and social upheaval.

    Lers watch the EC closely shall we? The enormous debts which are the product of their attempts towards “sustainable” development are rapidly becoming unsustainable.



  8. I haven’t said that genocide is a solution. I said we need a responsible demographic policy.

    >>The enormous debts which are the product of their attempts towards “sustainable” development >>are rapidly becoming unsustainable.

    No it’s not. these debts caused because of corruption. Is there any country without debts nowadays? look at the US – their sustainability efforts are far not as strong as European, but I believe you are aware of their debts.

    If you are still trying to convince me that free market will save environment, you have to bring some evidence with you. Bring it!

    When you look at Europe do not forget that most sustainable countries are in Northern Europe. Have you ever been there? They are really a paragon for sustainable development on the Earth. And in current situation they are not eager to pay for the corruption and mistakes made by other European countries. European debts have nothing to do with sustainable development efforts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s