What Using NONE Of The World’s Fossil Fuels Would Do To Human Society …Hundreds Of Millions Dead In Just Weeks!

The latest dubious climate scare story just out involves a far-fetched thought-spiel that creates a scenario of what would happen if all the world’s fossil fuels were burned – that scenario all based on an inflated CO2 climate sensitivity and crystal ball quality science.

The theorized result would be the possible melting of Antarctic ice and a 120+meter rise in sea level – “over thousands of years“. Little wonder already a number of scientists have dismissed the report as wildly speculative and of no value.

Well, in an equally far-fetched scenario people should instead consider the grave consequences of what would result if NO fossil fuels were burned, i.e. the opposite of burning all the fossil fuels. What would happen if the supply of fossil fuels were suddenly cut off today in our modern and prosperous society? The consequences would be cataclysmic and would occur immediately, and not over hundreds or thousands of years.

First without fossil fuels a majority of the world’s power plants (powered by coal, oil and gas) would stop. This would lead to widespread, permanent blackouts. Industries and the their output of life-sustaining goods would grind to a halt. Household appliances would cease to operate, meaning perishables stored in our refrigerators and freezers would begin to spoil within a matter of days, if not hours. Water would cease coming out of the taps because the public water works would be idled by the power loss. Cooking, bathing and sanitation would stop. Toilets would become inoperable. Sanitation services would not take our refuse away. Garbage would pile up within days.

Would you be able to just drive to the supermarket and get the things you need? Traffic control systems and signals would switch off and traffic would turn into mayhem. Within hours cars and trucks would run out of fuel and stall, leaving millions of motorists stranded over tens of thousands of miles of streets littered with abandoned vehicles. Stranded motorists would be left to fend for themselves. Grocery store shelves, not being refilled by delivery trucks, would quickly be looted.

Entire information and communication systems would be dead, ATM machines would stop, lights and power at schools and hospitals would go out. The healthcare system would collapse immediately. Forget calling the authorities. Emergency vehicles would cease to operate because they would have no fuel. Police, fire and ambulances would not be able to respond to calls. Law enforcement would be paralyzed, which would lead to instantaneous anarchy and mayhem. Rapists, murderers and criminals would have a field day. Violent gangs would soon take over. Loved ones on business trips, vacations, universities, weekend trips would never be seen again because there would be no way for them to return, except by taking the perilous journey through the mayhem on foot. All air traffic would be grounded. Most would be stranded and left to fend for themselves.

Next imagine it’s wintertime with temperatures well below freezing and the wind outside is howling. Your home is without heat, lighting, electricity or water. How are you going to prepare your next meal, wash your clothes, bathe or stay warm? Immediately homes would turn cold and millions and frozen water pipes would burst. Millions of people would start chopping tress down to burn for heat to stay warm. In no time our skies would be choked by ash and particulates.

In the summer within hours millions would begin to suffer from hunger and dehydration. To comprehend the utter hell you would find yourself in, imagine what your next step would be when you find that your fridge is empty and there’s no more water and electricity? You’re hungry and thirsty, you’re craving for food and your children are sick. What are you going to do? Walk to the supermarket? These will be long since looted. Any meat and dairy products left at the markets will be rotted and the place overrun by rats and insects. To quench your thirst you might consider drinking the untreated water from a local stream. Good luck with that. You can go outside and make a fire to sterilize the water, but you’re hungry and there’s nothing to eat. Suddenly your dog or cat starts looking like a meal, or worse, you start looking like a meal for all the abandoned dogs now running stray. Humans would start cannibalizing, with the strong preying on the weak. Syria and ISIS in comparison would look like a Love Parade parade event!

The regions with nuclear power would be better off – at least at first – but not for long as they would soon would be overrun by a tsunami of millions of blackout refugees. Chaos would ensue. Society would break down into a free-for-all.

By now you get the picture. Hundreds of millions would perish within a matter days and weeks – killed by exposure, dehydration, starvation, disease or murder. Billions would die within weeks and months.

So what do you prefer? That scenario, or a sea level rise of 100 meters over 5000 years?

27 responses to “What Using NONE Of The World’s Fossil Fuels Would Do To Human Society …Hundreds Of Millions Dead In Just Weeks!”

  1. Martin

    Average temperature at the Vostok station is -55°C.
    The Ice thickness is more than 4 kilometers in some places.
    Geeze those warmunists are getting desperate.

  2. DirkH

    And the weirdest thing of all in the climato-jonestown cult: The obvious warmunist way out, nuclear power, is Beelzebub to them. Because, they don’t actually want a convenient solution – it’s all about making the peons suffer for their climate sins. This tells us something about their mental state: As warmunists are atheist materialists, this indicates that they fall back to a pre-Messianic self-sacrification cult – as no Messiah died for their sins.

    Talking about Jonestown-type cults, let’s look at what the EU is doing.
    http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/klima-eu-umwelt-101.html
    The ongoing disintegration under the immigration attack sure doesn’t stop the Belgian lunatics from saving the planet and destroying civilization. Demand the usual idiotic CO2 reductions in Paris, some ludicrous percentage targets, legally binding and all, well if they make it as binding as Maastricht and Schengen, we know what happened to them.

    And while we’re at Jonestown type cults, let’s look at the Obama admin.
    http://www.taz.de/VW-verstoesst-gegen-Klimaschutzregeln/!5234173/
    VW has sinned against the climate and must pay a trainload of Federal reserve notes, says EPA. For *SOME* reason. Because, VW’s kill the climate 40 times more than allowed! Or something. Well the Nazis invented the Volkswagen that’s for sure, I guess my Polo is posessed by demonic spirits, gotta check when I get it back from the garage.

  3. Arsten

    No offense, Pierre, but your brain scares me. 🙂

  4. sod

    Sorry, but the places with nuclear power would not do any better. The plants would go down, when the electricity system collapse and it would be impossible to bring any one of them back online without power.

    The only places that would do better, are those with alternative power: solar and water power would work rather fine, and in combination with those, one could get wind back online.

    your scenario is extremely far fetched, while burning all coal and oil is something that is clearly supported by a majority of people posting here!

    1. DirkH

      Because it’s impossible to run a nuclear power plant if it’s 2 degrees Celsius warmer outside. Trust sod on that one because he’s a nuclear expert. From Greenpeace, right, sod?

      1. sod

        “Because it’s impossible to run a nuclear power plant if it’s 2 degrees Celsius warmer outside.”

        No. You did not understand it at all. It is impossible to run a nuclear power plant without power.

        A breakdown of the grid (this would be the first result of the vanishing fossil fuels in the scenario outlined above) will shut down the reactor. and without off plant power (and without emergency diesel) the reactor will never get back online.

        It would transform into one of those fukushima type bombs

    2. roger

      Well sod, let’s examine your crass post above in the light of the here and now UK generation.
      DEMAND 31.64GW
      SOLAR. TOO SMALL TO MEASURE
      HYDRO. 0.16GW
      PUMPED NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS SCENARIO
      We will now use this power to get wind back on line.
      Current wind production from thousands of turbines dispersed across the four corners of the UK. 0.70GW
      So tell us sod, why would we bother?
      And why do we bother, I ask, as I watch the surrounding arrays of turbines stand idle in the land and seascape, just as they have done almost every day this September.
      And why do you bother to continue to defend the indefensible?

      1. sod

        Pierre was talking about what power source would survive his scenario. His claim was, that nuclear power would do very well. It would not, but would end up with explosions on the majority of nuclear power reactors.

        Instead, plenty of alternative power sources would simply keep working: small water plants would work perfectly.
        It could provide a tiny level of “base load”.

        and so would roof top solar. It would keep some sort of civilisation going.

        Biofuel and biogas would also keep working.

        bigger alternative power sources would suffer from a similar problem that nuclear does: you would need a stable micro grid (output matched by demand) and most likely you would also need some amount of external power to get it running (for example tun run the control equipment).

        Alternative power will fare much better in such a scenario in a couple of years. A Tesla power wall in many houses and a grid penetration of 30% to 40% renewables would make this scenario much better to survive.

        1. roger

          Sod. “so would roof top solar. It would keep some sort of civilisation going.”
          The last major civilisation to be obsessed by the sun was early Egyptian and culminated in an obsessive pharaoh, Akhenaten, who worshipped the sun and spent almost all of Egypt’s great wealth on his cohort of cronies to spread political disinformation amongst the people whilst he built useless temples staffed by useless priests throughout the land.
          If that seems familiar, the French have three words for it…. plus ca change.

    3. David Johnson

      Totally missing the point as usual sod. Nuclear power is posited as the solution to CO2 emissions made by Coal,Oil and Gas that green zealots refuse to countenance.

  5. DirkH

    Criminally incompetent AND/OR treacherous German socialist SPD-CDU Volksfront government in the process of destroying energy providers RWE and EON by introducing new laws to increase their liability for nuclear waste.
    http://www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/rainer-baake-ist-mister-energiewende-und-ein-schrecken-der-energiewirtschaft-aid-1.5406743?google_editors_picks=true
    Of course when nuclear power was introduced in the 70ies the plan by the government was waste reprocessing – abandoned in the 80ies. And as opposed to USSR/Russia we also stopped development of fast neutron reactors to consume the waste.

    So – will the incompetent AND/OR treacherous government ruin the current darlings Wind and Solar as well years down the road with arbitrary decisions? I say yes! Tie yourself to the socialist central planners and see what it gets you!

    As to the stocks of RWE and EON: Falling knifes – don’t touch them – at least through the whole of October is my advice! As October is THE MONTH! GLOBALLY! Watch out for what Martin Armstrong has to say.

  6. jim

    I think, you all missed the point. How do you transport energy? How do you transport foodstuffs to sales areas? How do you conduct business? It all relies on portable power. And a created, and maintained infrastructure. Are there trains, shipping, trucks, tractors, and aircraft that use alternative fuels? Once the basis for infrastructure fails, its a dominano reaction. Look for mass upheaval. Does any one have a years worth of wheat? Corn? Meats? In storage in a 900 square foot apartment? Starvation. Or on a city lot of a tenth of an acre? Could you grow enough rice to feed a family? The question begs? Mortuary sciences anyone?

  7. David

    about the same will happen if a country is solely powered by wind and solar.

  8. Mike

    I think you describe something that has a measure of excitement about it. Although of course it is a nightmare, we are familiar with the nightmare in different scenarios from Hollywood and the BBC. I don’t know how many films there are that consider the destruction of mankind with the survival of a few , but there must be many.

    I am thinking of the BBC 1970’s series of “The survivors” where a virus was accidentally released and which killed most of the human race. 2012 was similar, war of the worlds and planet of the apes too.

    There is something fascinating about finding ways to survive, and knowing that no one now controls what you do. Authority is gone!

    There is the chance to start again and build something better, without all the selfish and corrupt politicians, or being force fed with TV game shows and soap operas. No more phone calls, no more advertisements!!

    Suddenly life is real. The sanitization is gone. The whole world is open to be rebuilt, only better.

    But the problem of humanity is endemic. The same corruptions will arise even in the surviving generation. The need for power and control, rivalry, wars etc. Christians refer to it as sin. Psychologists recognise it but have alternative explanations which don’t work.

    Still, there is excitement in it. The greenies would love to live in this new green world where all the power is free; everyone only eats home grown vegetables; and the only moral code is “thou must be green”.

    Very good description Pierre.

  9. Jeff

    Another thing the science-starved watermelons rarely, if ever, think about is that petroleum-based compounds are the
    foundation of almost all (if not all) plastics, many medicines, other compounds that are very useful (bye-bye WD-40 and duct tape), and many others.

    Indeed, life as we know it will be difficult, if not impossible, without the “demonized” “fossil fuels”…

    Then again, maybe the watermelons want us back in the second century, or thereabouts… Too bad they’ll have to give up
    their i-Things they use to keep up with their various demonstrations and “occupy stupid” gatherings…

  10. Hasbeen

    I spent many years living off grid on my yacht, in complete comfort. I was however set up for it with gas, petrol, diesel, & a large battery bank. I had fridge, cooking & lighting covered for over a couple of months.

    I recently spent 5 very uncomfortable days when heavy unseasonable rainfall flooded us in, with my large generator not at home, & mains power out from the start.

    The small generator would not start the new big fridge freezer, so most food was off in a day, there was not that much fuel on hand, so only generator for light a couple of hours a night, not all that much gas, so not game to use the barbeque to bake bread. Nothing suitable for baking on a camp fire, & no power to weld up something to use. We did make a couple of damper, but damper without butter or jam is no fun.

    It brought home how totally dependent we have become on our civilisation. I now have a pile of insurance in survival equipment & fuels ready should it happen again.

    1. sod

      Solar power roof, a home battery system would have helped.

      http://www.businessinsider.com.au/teslas-powerwall-is-to-be-on-sale-in-australia-before-the-end-of-the-year-2015-9

      Without sunshine, one of the small wind power generators which now are used on plenty of boats would also help a lot.

      https://www.emarineinc.com/categories/Marine-Wind-Turbines

      Most small communities would benefit from a small (bio)gas heat/power plant.

      1. DirkH

        Sounds great! The best part is: The totalitarian state pays it for you by robbing productive people!

        And what’s NOT to like about FREE STUFF??? Warmunism yay yay yay!

        1. sod

          you do understand, that those solar panels produce power at a CHEAPER price, than offered by the grid?

          you do understand, that new LED lights are also cheaper than the old bulbs?

          Basically many of those green products are good, even if you completely ignore the environmental effect.

          Those LED lights will use a factor 10 less power. Good, even in an emergency!

          1. sod

            Price over lifetime. Those LED work basically forever. And they use 10% of electricity.

            people have made the calculations:

            http://greenlivingideas.com/2015/02/19/the-true-cost-of-light-bulbs-led-cfl-incandescent/

            Again: the LED will be better in an emergency situation (like y<our no coal scenario). BUT it is also better all the time.

          2. DirkH

            sod 20. September 2015 at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Reply
            “you do understand, that those solar panels produce power at a CHEAPER price, than offered by the grid?”

            You really cannot think, right?
            Nobody would subsidize solar panels if you were right.

          3. sod

            “Nobody would subsidize solar panels if you were right.”

            That is false. the majority of subsidies are for economically beneficial products already. They still get a subsidy, for example to compensate for upfront costs (people do not invest in this way, EVEN when it is beneficial for them AND the community), so giving them a tax reduction makes the see the economic benefit more immmediately.

            Have you ever heard of those subsidies for gas and oil? Do you think they exist, because fossile fuels make no economic sense?

  11. Magnum

    In respect of shutting down accademic freedom, this post is interesting.

    https://www.facebook.com/jfgariepyneuro/posts/466442776860755?fref=nf

  12. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #197 | Watts Up With That?
  13. Ecco cosa accadrebbe alla società umana se non si usasse alcun combustibile fossile del mondo... centinaia di milioni di morti in poche settimane! : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte: What Using NONE Of The World’s Fossil Fuels Would Do To Human Society …Hundreds Of Mill… […]

  14. Dan

    Not many years ago, we were told, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. We were told that increasing CO2 would cause warming. Since then we have burn a lot of fossil fuel and the CO2 has risen to 400ppm. If we had stopped all fossil fuel use the CO2 level would have fallen.
    But CO2 is essential for life. At 220 ppm, crop failures would start and below 180ppm all the major food crops would fail. Plant and animal life would face extinction. Human life would rely on primitive plant food and the world could support a population of around 1- 2 million at most.
    The greatest extinction the world has experienced can happen in our lifetime.
    Fossil fuel and the industrial revolution has saved our lives and we didn’t even notice.