They’re gaslighting voters and consumers – when the real mass killers are environmentalists

Paul Driessen

We’re constantly told fossil fuel use is causing an existential climate crisis, extreme weather, worsening wildfires, and more frequent and intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts.

Actual temperature, storm and other records provide no support for these claims. They certainly don’t back up ludicrous assertions that burning coal, oil and natural gas – and even human breathing and baking pizzas in wood-fired ovens – are causing countless alleged calamities: such as slowing Earth’s rotation, thereby affecting scientific time clocks (by one second).

The claims are based primarily on computer models that erroneously assume carbon dioxide and a few other “greenhouse gases” (0.05% of Earth’s atmosphere, in total) control the climate, while the sun plays virtually no role, urban heat islands are inconsequential, and incompetent forest management is irrelevant.

It’s gaslighting: perversions of truth designed to make us guilt-ridden, willing to slash our living standards, and happy to keep poor countries energy-deprived and impoverished.

In the USA and worldwide, fossil fuels still provide 80% of total energy. They’re also the foundation for our economy, living standards, health and longevity – and over 6,000 vital products, including plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, cell phones, eyeglasses, fertilizers and wind turbine blades.

“Earth-friendly” wind and solar installations would blanket millions of acres of farmland, scenic areas and wildlife habitats; require billions of tons of ores; generate billions of tons of toxic water and air pollution from mining and manufacturing; and send electricity prices skyrocketing to pay for expensive battery or gas backup systems, and extensive new transmission lines and grid upgrades.

Climate Defiance, Extinction Rebellion and other radical groups nevertheless block pipelines, rant and rampage through our streets, deface priceless artwork, and glue themselves to roads and statues, to intimidate legislators and regulators.

Others file endless lawsuits to bankrupt fossil fuel projects and promote their twisted views about “climate justice.” Their latest scheme could be viewed as the culmination of their self-indoctrination.

A recent Harvard Environmental Law Review article proposes prosecuting major oil companies for “climate homicide” and “mass murder” – for supposedly killing people, by raising global temperatures and sea levels, and causing deadlier hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, heatwaves, blizzards and wildfires.

Media outlets eagerly promoted the claims – and Soros-funded prosecutors will undoubtedly be thrilled to indict ExxonMobil and other companies, once they’ve put more flash-mob thieves back on our streets.

But not even these prosecutors – or any judge, jury or “expert witness” – can separate natural from human causes of modern climate change. Nor can they calculate fractions of manmade-climate-change-induced disasters attributable to coal, oil, gas, dung, or “renewable” energy mining and manufacturing; to China and India versus Europe and the United States; or certainly to specific energy companies.

What they really don’t want addressed in this “climate homicide” discussion, however, is who is actually committing mass murder, especially of women and children, people with disabilities, people of color and other “particularly threatened” groups so supposedly beloved by climate justice warriors.

My book, Eco-Imperialism: Green power · Black death, forcefully demonstrates that it is these self-righteous climate and environmental activists, and those who fund them, that are callously causing the eco-murder deaths of millions every year – and setting the stage for dramatically more in the future.

These environmentalist death tolls have worsened, as greens became wealthier, more powerful, more fanatical, and more influential with and within US, EU and UN government agencies.

More than 750 million people still have no access to electricity; nearly 2 billion have only sporadic access to barely enough electricity to charge cell phones and power a lightbulb or 1-cubic-foot refrigerator – and no juice for modern homes, schools and hospitals, water purification, or factories and other job-creating businesses.

These people are forced to heat and cook with wood, charcoal or animal dung, inhaling noxious fumes that cause millions of deaths annually from respiratory diseases. Millions more die annually from intestinal diseases due to contaminated water and spoiled food, due to energy deprivation.

Green fanatics perpetuate the death tolls, by battling anything except grossly insufficient, weather-dependent wind and solar power. (In European and other modern countries, people die of heatstroke when they cannot get or afford air conditioning; nine times more die from cold – from hypothermia and illnesses they’d normally survive if they could afford to heat their homes properly.)

The fanatics also wage campaigns to deny Third World people access to insecticides and spatial insect repellants that would control disease-carrying flies and mosquitoes and even modern farming practices and technologies. Millions more thus die every year from diseases that are readily preventable or could be cured in modern hospitals (that don’t exist).

No wonder developing nations increasingly reject Western carbon colonialism.

Radical food groups despise genetically engineered crops that multiply crop yields, survive droughts and slash pesticide spraying by 75% or more. They vilify Golden Rice, which enables malnourished children to avoid Vitamin A Deficiency, blindness and death.

They demand “AgroEcology,” which rejects virtually everything that helps modern farmers feed billions more people (read this article!) with less acreage and water, and could largely eliminate hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The perverse movement rabidly opposes biotechnology, chemical insecticides, nitrogen fertilizers, and even hybrid seeds, monoculture farming and mechanized equipment like tractors.

It demands “food sovereignty” for impoverished, malnourished Africans, Asians and Latin Americans – the right to “define their own food and agriculture systems” and have “healthy and culturally appropriate” food produced through “ecologically sound and sustainable methods.”

Even more bizarre and frightening, major philanthropies like the Rockefeller Foundation and Walton Family Foundation support this craziness! So do the World Bank and many UN agencies.

They say the world’s food production systems should be “aligned” with the purely arbitrary goal of preventing more than 1.5ºC of global warming since 1850, by “phasing out fossil fuel use, especially fossil-fuel-based chemicals in industrial agriculture.”

Farmers who want to “define their own food and agriculture systems” by choosing modern technologies and practices get ostracized instead of supported.

It’s increasingly obvious that climate fear-mongering and GIGO computer models have replaced evidence-based science, history, human nutrition needs and traditional ethical principles. More and more, it is regulating and academic elites versus the rest of us, in rich and poor countries alike.

But on a more positive note, climate cultists chomping at the bit to see oil companies prosecuted for climate murder should be careful what they wish for. Such a precedent could put eco-imperialists and their financiers on trial for manslaughter on a truly horrific scale.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of articles and books on environmental, climate and human rights issues.

The A66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner is a terrible road. I should know – I drive it often enough. As the main trunk road over the Pennines between the M62 (which is well to the south) and the A69 (to the north, between Carlisle and Newcastle upon Tyne), it is heavily used by lorries, but also (because it runs through rural areas) by many tractors. In addition it sees quite a lot of caravans and motor homes, since it is a convenient route to the Lake District for those travelling from the east, and army vehicles are not uncommon either, thanks to there being an army base at Warcop immediately adjacent to the road. To add to the chaos, the annual “horse fair” at Appleby sees the travelling community arriving in large numbers, typically driving large vehicles towing caravans, but also often using horse-drawn caravans and horses and traps. Combine that traffic profile with the fact that significant sections of it have still not been turned into dual carriageway, and you have a recipe for slow and dangerous travel.

Or, as Highways England puts it in yet another massive report (running to more than 100 pages):

The A66 provides an important strategic, regional and local route, connecting east and west coasts, as well as providing local access… It is the most direct route between the Tees Valley, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, parts of West Yorkshire, the East Midlands, Eastern England and North Cumbria, Glasgow, and much of the central belt of Scotland and Cairnryan (for access to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland).

There is a lack of public transport infrastructure on the A66, with minimal bus service provision and no direct east-west rail connections. This emphasises the importance of the A66 in terms of strategic connectivity across the UK.

For key journeys across the UK, such as trips from the east and south east of England to the north west of England or Scotland, the A66 is the most direct and quickest route. The only strategic alternative east-west route for road traffic in the north of England is the M62 or the A69, both of which require a significantly longer journey time.

The data from the report isn’t up-to-date, going back to 2015, and I suspect that since then the statistics will have deteriorated, at least so far as the simple car driver is concerned. We are told that in 2015, the proportion of HGVs using the road was between 18% and 29% (which carries a remarkable degree of imprecision, unless those proportions are accurate but representing highs and lows at different times of the day). That’s an astonishingly high proportion, given that we are told that the typical proportion “is 15% on motorways, 12% on trunk roads and 8% on principal roads”.

The consequence, it seems, is a particularly dangerous and problematic road:

The A66 has average casualties 50% higher than the average casualties across SRN [Strategic Road Network]. Road traffic accidents are a major cause of incidents and closures on the route. More than 20% of these road closures last over five hours (between 2014 and 2016). Therefore, this route’s overall performance is deemed low.

The A66 has a higher-than-average number of accidents in some sections of the route, with a number of accident cluster sites… A number of these sites are either located in single carriageway sections or in dual sections adjacent to single carriageway sections. Varying standards along the route with a mixture of single and dual carriageway sections leads to difficulties with overtaking, poor forward visibility, and difficulties at junctions as a result of short merges and diverges and right turning traffic off and on to the A66.

A footnote to those observations tells us that the higher than average casualty rate is actually “29 casualties on average per hundred million vehicle miles on route compared to 19 casualties on average across SRN and 24 casualties on average across dual carriageway A-roads.” That suggests that the casualty statistics are roughly between one-fifth and one-third higher than comparable roads. The casualty statistics, in detail, make for sober reading:

Between 2013 and 20177, there were 197 accidents which occurred along the route, equating to an average of 40 accidents per year. Of the 197 reported accidents, 74% resulted in slight injuries, 21% resulted in serious injuries and 5% resulted in fatality. Over the five-year period, accidents which resulted in fatalities increased, with five fatal accidents in 2015, including three which involved head-on collisions at the Warcop bends and at Crackenthorpe. There was also one fatality in 2016 and 3 fatalities in 2017.

In some cases, accidents caused multiple casualties; the 197 accidents resulted in 340 casualties, of which 18 were fatal, 93 were serious and 229 were slight… The highest casualties over a five-year period was recorded in 2015 with 12 fatalities.

My perception (and I accept that it is only my perception) as a regular user of the route, is that since those statistics were noted the volume of traffic using the route has increased considerably, with the inevitable consequence that the number of accidents also seems to have increased. I suppose I am lucky not to have been involved in an accident, but I have regularly found myself at a standstill for long periods of time (in the worst cases, for hours on end, with no ability to turn around and find an alternative route).

Not surprisingly, the report concludes that there is a “a strong correlation between accident cluster sites and the remaining sections of single carriageway.” Various attempts have been made to render the road safer – the introduction of a 50mph limit over considerable distances; the installation of speed cameras; the introduction of a 40mph limit through the village of Kirkby Thore; and the provision of a right-turn lane at an accident black-spot. Still, or so it seems to me, the numbers of accidents and casualties rise remorselessly. And the accidents that continue to occur, tragic though they are for those directly affected, also have significant effects for those drivers caught up in the aftermath:

Due to the varying standard of the route and lack of suitable diversionary routes, the route’s ability to maintain smooth traffic flow during periods of disruption such as road traffic accidents and severe weather events is poor. The high elevation of the route at Bowes Moor and Stainmore and severe weather events are common in this area, making the route particularly vulnerable to accidents.

The ability to keep the route open during accidents, incidents and other disruptions is significantly affected by the existence of the single carriageway sections. Generally, traffic movements can be better managed when incidents happen on dual carriageway sections.

In the event of a closure on the A66, there are limited diversion routes and this leads to delays, longer journey distances and longer journey times. For a closure of the A66 between Scotch Corner and Bowes – journey distance 24km (15miles), the diversion route follows the A1(M), A66(M) and the A67, and is 43km (27miles) in length. This route has 30mph speed restrictions through Darlington, weight restrictions at Barnard Castle and is unsuitable for abnormal loads due to the width of the road. In the event of a closure between Penrith and Brough – journey distance of 34km (21miles), the diversion route follows the M6 and A685, and is 53km (33miles) in length. This route has a speed limit of 30mph through Kirkby Stephen and 40mph through Brough, and vehicles weighing in excess of 18 tonnes are restricted from using the A685 between Brough and Kirkby Stephen, with the exception of access, permit holders or vehicles moving livestock.

In the event of a full route closure, or due to weight restrictions, the diversion route for heavy goods vehicles is significantly longer than the direct distance of 80km (50miles) as it uses the A1(M), the A69 and the M6 and has a length of 184km (115miles). Freight traffic will often use the diversion route if delays are likely to be long term, but sometimes will remain on the A66 waiting for the traffic to clear, either because they cannot physically turn back due to lack of turning facilities, or the driver does not have the required driving hours left to reach the nearest truck stop or rest location. Due to weight restrictions and height restrictions on highways structures, and also the proximity of buildings to the carriageway, it is not feasible to enable HGV traffic to use the shorter diversion routes.

As I said – the A66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner is a terrible road. It was thus a huge relief to learn that plans are now in place to turn the entire distance into a dual carriageway – albeit my relief was tempered by the knowledge that this project will apparently take ten years to complete, and I fear that while the works are ongoing, the situation may deteriorate still further. Nevertheless, for a host of reasons, not least of which is road safety and the current danger to life, it is important that the project goes ahead. If I were concerned about CO2 emissions, it would occur to me that whenever there is an accident, CO2 emissions must be increased significantly by all those idling engines stuck in the aftermath, and by all the extra miles taken by vehicles following detours to avoid the scene of the accident. There must be an argument – perhaps quite a strong argument – that even from the point of view of those who wish to “save the planet” from the “climate crisis”, the dualling of the A66 makes sense.

Sadly, not everyone sees things that way, and my heart sank when I spotted a piece on a local website, headed “Legal challenge launches over plans to dual A66”:

Transport Action North has lodged the challenge against the granting of a development consent order for the scheme, which would see 50 miles of the road from Penrith to Scotch Corner turned into a dual carriageway.

The organisation said it believed the Secretary of State’s decision was flawed.

And so, here we go again – yet another expensive judicial review, yet more delays, and while the delays are ongoing, yet more deaths. The reasoning expressed by Chris Todd, Transport Action Network’s founder and director, strikes me as weak and driven by dogma. He complains about the “great harm” that will be caused “to important landscapes and wildlife”, yet – so far as I know, neither he nor his organisation have ever complained, still less brought a legal challenge to prevent, the great harm caused to important landscapes and wildlife by proliferating wind and solar farms.

Next he makes the dubious link to “more flooding due to climate change”, and claims that the dualling will encourage more HGVs and thus drive up “carbon” emissions by the remarkably precise number of 2.7 million tonnes. This ignores the reality that traffic on the road is increasingly naturally due to an ever-increasing UK population, and ignores the emissions caused by traffic sitting idling in the aftermath of yet another crash and/or being diverted huge distances to avoid the crash. Rather dubiously, he also says that more HGVs will make the existing dualled sections of the A66 more dangerous (he has nothing to say about the new dualling making those currently un-dualled sections of the road safer). He claims that National Highways should instead be implementing “cheaper and quicker” safety measures, ignoring the fact that they have already done so, without any significant safety improvements, so far as I can see.

Transport Action Network is based in the south of England, I believe, so will be blissfully unaware of the daily reality that faces we poor saps who have to use the A66 regularly. It is also yet another climate alarmist organisation that is viscerally opposed to building new roads (and, it seems, improving existing ones):

Climate Change and the need for decarbonisation are now high on the agendas of many organisations. There are many challenges and issues to tackling this problem, although the best start would be to stop making things worse by building more roads.

It is primarily funded by the Foundation for Integrated Transport.

Needless to say, they are a registered charity. Reading their website I am far from hostile to all of their activities, and I would go so far as to wish them well with some of them. However, I would urge them to ponder the reality that failing to dual the A66 between Penrith and Scoth Corner will make no discernible difference to climate change, nor to the lives of anyone on the planet supposedly affected by climate change. However, failing to dual the A66 over that distance will cause people to die in road traffic accidents that dualling would help to avoid. Should charities be funding legal action that, if successful, will cause people to die?