That sounds like a relatively straightforward question, and yet it is actually pretty complicated, driven by the amount of fresh water available, the amount of food that can be grown, the nitrogen cycle, the availability of phosphorus, atmospheric carbon concentrations, the availability of cheap and reliable energy, and a host of other factors.

Nor is the number of people the Earth can support static. Improving agricultural methods can, for example, drive the number higher. The introduction of dwarf wheat in the 1950s, by Dr. Norman Borlaug, improved wheat harvests by 900% and also radically increased the amount of land that could be used to grow wheat. Unlike organic wheat, dwarf wheat can be grown almost anywhere, making it a life-saving crop for third-world countries.

Currently, scientists believe the Earth can support around ten billion people.

We are approaching 8 billion people, and the Earth’s population is expected to peak over the next 20-40 years, and then start coming down, stabilizing at somewhere around 4 billion people.

All of this should be good news – the Earth will never reach population levels it cannot support, and will then drop to numbers that can easily be supported. Everyone should be happy!

Sadly, not everyone is happy…

We know that climate alarmists have cheap and reliable energy in their sights. Energy causes co2 production, so we cannot have it – even though it is easy (and inexpensive) to produce energy with natural gas WITHOUT emitting co2.

We could eliminate co2 emissions from electrical production tomorrow by switching the world entirely to natural gas generators with co2 filtration. And what do you do with the captured co2? You can use it as fuel.

We could eliminate co2 emissions over time by switching to nuclear reactors. Modern nuclear reactors are safe and reliable, and though the initial investment is much larger than that of natural gas reactors, in the long run, nuclear power costs only a fraction of the cost of natural gas – and it is even possible to build different types of nuclear reactors such that the waste from one type can become fuel for the other.

Co2 and nuclear power are cheap and reliable. As such, the climate alarmists want to ban both, replacing them with ‘renewables’ that are neither cheap nor reliable, even though expensive, unreliable energy will reduce the number of people the Earth can support.

Climate alarmists are also going after agriculture, calling for the elimination of all genetically modified foods (such as dwarf wheat), the elimination of non-organic fertilizers (such as nitrogen and phosphate-based fertilizers), and the elimination of large tracts of farmland.

Furthermore, the elimination of phosphate and nitrogen-based fertilizers leaves the world with nothing but manure as a fertilizer, and climate alarmists want to eliminate, or at least radically reduce, the production of meat. Human manure cannot be used as a fertilizer as doing so causes botulism – a potentially deadly disease. Consequently, without farm animals, we will have no manure – and no fertilizers of any kind.

If we assume that manure will come from Heaven the way manna did during Exodus, and we ask ourselves how many people the Earth can support using the new ‘green’ agricultural techniques, the answer is somewhere between 1 and 2 billion people (depending on how much current farmland, and the specifics of what farmland, is laid fallow). That’s seven to eight billion people less than we need to feed.

When do the climate alarmists want to make these agricultural changes? Right now. According to a report by Deloitte – one of the world’s largest accounting firms – we are out of time and have to make all these changes immediately if we are to survive. 

Let us do some simple math. We have about 8 billion people, and that number is going to continue to grow for 20-40 years before peaking out at somewhere around 9 billion. In the meantime, we will produce food for only 1 billion to 2 billion.

We need to support 9 billion and can support no more than 2 billion. So riddle me this – what happens to the other seven to eight billion people? Deloitte does not bother to tell us what happens to the 7-8 billion people who will no longer be fed, but medical science does: those people will all have to starve to death.

Will you be among the vast majority of the human population Deloitte wants to kill? Will your family be among the vast majority of people Deloitte wants to die?

Climate alarmists don’t tell us what will happen to the 7 or 8 billion people we are not going to feed. In fact, climate alarmists ignore the fact that the changes they demand will radically reduce the amount of food that can be produced. Climate alarmists simply say that agriculture will be ‘important and challenging.’ This is very similar language to what climate alarmists tell us about providing energy with only renewables, acknowledging ‘challenges’ without specifying just what those challenges will be.

The ‘challenges’ include such trivial details as it not being possible to get the energy we need from the sources of energy climate alarmists will allow. The ‘challenges’ include the pesky little detail that somewhere around 80% of the human population is going to die – and very soon if Deloitte gets its way.

Deloitte, the WEF, the IPCC, and other globalist groups, are calling for a level of genocide the world has never even imagined before, all on the grounds of ‘saving the planet.’ Let that sink in for a minute, and understand that this is not hyperbole. Reducing the ability to grow food by 90% really is their plan, and some countries, like Sri Linka (sorry – Sri Lanka is now a former country, having recently collapsed) and the Netherlands, are already implementing these changes.

Here is a bold prediction – when masses of people are starving, or dying due to a lack of energy, climate alarmists will call the deaths proof of climate change, confirming (in their minds anyway) that all of the changes they demanded really were necessary.  Only seven billion people died, dear reader. Think about how much worse it could have been!

These people are so self-aggrandizing in their perceived moral superiority that they will take no accountability whatsoever for any of the harm they are going to do, in spite of the fact that this harm would kill off 80% of the world population ⏤ if we allowed it to happen.

Luckily for us, 80% of the world’s population is not going to die. At the end of the day, that 80% of the world’s population will take to the streets, demanding that we slow down our transition to a green new world enough to feed them, in the same way that Europeans are taking to the streets today to demand that their governments find some way to produce the energy they can afford.

Winter is coming, and though millions of Europeans will likely freeze to death this coming year thanks to ‘woke’ energy policies, hundreds of millions of Europeans likely will not. Europe is going to see a garden-variety holocaust this winter, but not the population-crushing holocaust the globalists are trying so very hard to cause.

Note that if my tone sounds sarcastic, it’s an angry sarcasm. This article is not hyperbole. It is nothing more than a rational examination of what will happen if the ‘green new deal’ takes hold – as is happening in the Netherlands, and has already happened in the former Sri Lanka.

What will happen is that ⏤ alarmists will demand changes to ‘save the planet,’ and then as those changes are rolled-out, costs will explode, and lifestyles will collapse, causing riots. To quell the riots, governments will roll back some of the changes. We are going to have a push and a pull between the desire of the elites to ‘go green,’ and the demand of the masses to survive. This push and pull will keep our nations unstable, unhappy, and impoverished, but for the most part ⏤ alive.

There will be deaths, for sure. We are likely going to see several million Europeans die this winter due to a lack of heat. But we will not see billions of deaths, as the masses will continuously rise up to demand change whenever the deaths start to mount.

The real question we have to ask is not whether or not we are going to transition to the world the alarmists envision. That, simply put, is not going to happen. If we are to see a dramatic reduction in co2 emissions, it will be through technologies the alarmists specifically want to ban (such as natural gas and nuclear power).  

The real question is how much pain we have to endure before we stop listening to the alarmists. Do we start building a world of ever-increasing abundance, through free people and free markets, or do we play a life-and-death tug-of-war between alarmism and life-and-death realities related to the needs for energy and food?

We do not have to endure any pain. If we simply work toward eliminating the use of coal (or continue to find cleaner ways to use coal), and focus on natural gas and nuclear as our primary energy sources until such time that legitimate alternatives are available, we can reduce co2 levels to ranges even the alarmists can live with. Such reductions are not necessary, but they are possible. 

But note that even to do what the alarmists claim to want, we are going to have to drag the alarmists along, kicking and screaming the whole way. One has to wonder, based on the fact that the alarmists want to ban the very technologies that make their co2-less vision possible, what is it, exactly, that the globalists are after? It’s clearly not a greener world, so what is it?

Could it simply be control? 

Pharaoh used control to make the masses build the pyramids. What does Klaus Schwab want us to build for him?!?

I am afraid, sadly, that we are probably going to endure pain, unnecessary as that may be. Governments like control, and alarmism gives the world’s governments excuses to take control, and as such, alarmism is not going to go away, but will instead be a big part of policy making for the foreseeable future. Because of this, pain, misery, and a good deal of death are in our future.

The question will be how much pain, suffering, and death we as a people are willing to endure.

There are other transitions we will have to face, even if we find the moral courage to tell the climate alarmists where to put their alarmism. As the world population peaks, and then begins to retract, the world will change in a myriad of ways that will cause a great deal of economic disruption, even as overall the world improves. But if we do not get control over the alarmists, we might not even live long enough to see that better world emerge.