BBC Moral Maze Waffle-Fest Fails to Address Objection That Net Zero Could Leave Billions Dead From Starvation

There was a herd of elephants tramping loose through the studio in last week’s Net Zero edition of the BBC Radio 4 programme Moral Maze. Amidst an hour-long waffle-fest, the estimable journalist Ella Whelan pointed out that billions of people will die under Net Zero 2050 since half the world’s food is created using fossil fuels. This particular jumbo is a particularly jarring presence when Net Zero fanatics plan the end of civilisation as we know it, so wittering guest Dr Alice Evatt from the Oxford Environmental Change Institute lamely replied: “Billions of people are at risk from climate change.” Since this was a British state quango running the broadcast there was no debate about climate change and the distinctly unsettled science surrounding its causes and effects, just the traditional blind obedience to a politically settled narrative. As a result, the hour-long discussion was largely predicated on an assumption that it was justifiable to initiate industrial and societal collapse on the basis of a precautionary principle predicated on an invented collapse of the climate.

The BBC’s favourite sandwich-board sanctimonious prelate Giles Fraser said the world was going to have to get colder, poorer and less secure, adding that “if this [climate change] stuff is true”, the threat is existential. Of course if we just listen to the state broadcaster we will not be any the wiser as to whether this stuff is true since genuine climate science debate has been banned for years. This of course means that a Leftie like Fraser can get away with silly doom and gloom nostrums and promote world poverty based solely on an argument that begins with the word “if’.

Whelan was on cracking form, having earlier trumpeted loudly that Net Zero was an attack on the quality of life of the working classes, “in order to provide the middle classes with a bit of a warming glow to show off at their next vegan sustainable dinner party”. For Whelan it was class war, an argument that rings true as UK political groupings such as Labour and the LibDems turn into elite middle class echo chambers with weakening connections and sympathies with the majority of British people. “Interesting proposition, the industrial revolution was our gift to the world,” sneered Matthew Taylor, a long-time Moral Maze panellist and a former Labour director of policy.

To be fair to Fraser, cocooned in his cosy world of righteous, religion-tinged Left-wing politics, he probably has little idea of the devastation that removing hydrocarbon use from a modern industrial society will cause. As with many on the Left, Net Zero is a dream-come-true that collects political power into the virtuous hands of those who seize control of energy, and hence influence most of the essential functions of human existence. For decades, Fraser has probably ignored any scientific suggestion that the atmosphere is a complex place, and scientists have yet to convincingly separate any human-caused climate change from the natural influences constantly at work. If “if” is all he has to go on, he might like to consider Whelan’s remark that half the world will starve if his wish to ban hydrocarbon use is ever achieved. Of course, he is not alone in his utter stupidity that is based on an unsubstantiated science opinion that human-produced carbon dioxide, the gas of life, is the major control knob on the climate thermostat.

Last January, around 200 members of the British Parliament were prepared to support proposed legislation from an individual member that would have cut all hydrocarbon use across the British economy, both domestic and that used abroad, by around 90% within 10 years. Only very stupid, ill-informed people, or those with a sinister undisclosed motive, could conceivably have supported this measure, since it would likely have led to mass starvation, death, disease and societal collapse in the near future. But all the Lib Dem party, all the Greens, 90 Labour members and two crackpot Conservatives were in favour, something the British electorate might wish to consider at the next General Election if any of these dangerous muppets seeks a continued presence near the levers of power.

The ‘half the world dead from starvation’ trope might be an exaggeration – if it is lucky, the human race might get away with a reduction of just a third. A disproportionate number of the deaths will of course be in the ‘developing’ world since they will not be as well-armed as their Western neighbours. In any ‘might is right’ hunger fight, they will inevitably come off worst. In a Net Zero world of severe shortages, some form of colonialism or empire will make an inevitable comeback. Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen, of Princeton and MIT respectively, have 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 war and other human follies, have largely disappeared. The graph below shows the astonishing rise in basic crops from the time hydrocarbon-produced fertilisers were first widely used.

“Four billion dead if artificial fertiliser is banned is not BS,” notes former Greenpeace founder Dr Patrick Moore. “It is an almost guaranteed outcome.” Ella Whelan was right to bring this serious matter to the attention of BBC listeners. It’s just a shame that the rest of the wittering, virtue-signalling Moral Maze panel had their own Net Zero trunks firmly stuck in a place of perpetual darkness.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

Subscribe
Notify of

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.

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
zebedee
zebedee
6 months ago

Quanta have a special propaganda edition that they notified me of yesterday. Lots of fancy graphics to distract from the failed arguments.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/

sskinner
6 months ago
Reply to  zebedee

Actually dreadful graphics.

PeterM
PeterM
6 months ago

I wonder if Ella Whelan’s politics have become more pragmatic since becoming a mother. She is able to write regularly for The Telegraph now albeit still from a discernible left point of view.

Tonka Fairy
6 months ago
Reply to  PeterM

Ella’s great. I would describe her as on the libertarian soft left, a group I am happy to ally with. Great legs too.

Tonka Fairy
6 months ago

So a Professor’s (no less) best retort to the completely factual assertion that 3 billion people will die without ammonia fertiliser is that billions will die due to climate change.

Really? Not only is there no hard evidence for that assertion, it implies that the good prof just accepts that billions will die either way.

Solentviews
Solentviews
6 months ago
Reply to  Tonka Fairy

Except one way is strictly theoretical and the other is just about guaranteed. I think I know which is the obvious route to take.

ScienceTeacher
ScienceTeacher
6 months ago

Thanks for keeping an eye on the BBC Chris.
I start to rage even when I accidentally flick it on.

kev
kev
6 months ago

“IF” they were to achieve Net Zero on any timescale, then we would be probably looking at around 7 to 8 billion people on Earth dying.

Prior to the discovery of coal, oil and gas the world population was around 1 billion.

Thankfully, its a ridiculous fantasy that will be impossible to achieve, but in their insane blinkered attempt at the impossible they may well kill off a few billion unfortunates, mainly in the 3rd world, and maybe that is what they want!

Its a very big word if

sskinner
6 months ago

“Take away the energy-distributing networks and the industrial machinery from America, Russia, and all the world’s industrialized countries, and within six months more than two billion swiftly and painfully deteriorating people will starve to death (based on 1950s populations). Take away all the world’s politicians, all the ideologies and their professional protagonists from those same countries, and send them off on a rocket trip around the sun and leave all the countries their present energy networks, industrial machinery, routine production and distribution personnel, and no more humans will starve nor be afflicted in health than at present. 
Fortunately, the do-more-with-less invention initiative does not derive from political debate, bureaucratic licensing, or private economic patronage. The license comes only from the blue sky of the inventor’s intellect. No one licensed the inventors of the airplane, telephone, electric light, and radio to go to work. It took only the personally dedicated initiative of five men to invent those world transforming and world shrinking developments. Herein lies the unexpectedly swift effectiveness of the design-science revolution. Despite this historical demonstrable fact, world society as yet persists in looking exclusively to its politicians and their ideologues for world problem solving.”
Buckminster Fuller

sskinner
6 months ago

Consider the following and how they would all respond to Ella Whelan’s warnings of billions of deaths? We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.’ Ottmar Edenhoffer A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer Paul Ehrlich There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society John Holdren The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing Christopher Manes A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal Ted Turner My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy… Read more »

Gezza England
Gezza England
6 months ago

At today’s ploughing match global warming came up in conversations covering regenerative farming, carbon capture and rewilding. Both chaps agreed with me that it was bollocks. And the fake Met O weatherstations story had reached one of them.

RTSC
RTSC
6 months ago

I think “billions dead and/or never born” is the objective of the Eco psychopaths promoting the nonsense.

JDee
JDee
6 months ago

I tried listening to this moral maze but it was just awful and had to turn it off I was so angry at the stupidity on display. A key argument seemed to be based on the idea of justice. Which was cover for communist equalising down (except for governing elites) so that the masses do not have the energy resources to personally flourish, but satiated none the less because we are all equally miserable. Climate change policy is not conservation it destroys too much of the natural world. The issue of over population remains real however, hence the immigration issue in the UK, and still needs to be addressed. Chemical fertiliser will likely destroy the soil long term. I believe in the following strands, having enough energy to flourish actually reduces population growth , tax incentives to sustain replacement population size, a slow move back to conservation and organic agriculture which will of course reduce yeald but should be managed without creating a cliff edge.