Windy entrepreneur Dale Vince thinks there is “no single reason for us to drill more oil and gas in the North Sea”, former UK Green leader Caroline Lucas comments on BP’s recent cyclical profits rise by claiming, “such blatant profiteering from human misery is sickening”, while the headbangers’ headbanger George Monbiot likens Norway’s exports of hydrocarbons to “a curse to be dumped on other countries”. One can only pray that these twaddle transmitting twits do not become ill and have to call on modern, sophisticated, hydrocarbon-rich medicines.
Up to 20% of drilled oil and gas is turned into petrochemicals and these are used to make famine-reducing fertiliser, uber-useful plastics and life-saving medicines. Yet around 200 members of the British Parliament were prepared last year to vote for the demented, anti-human private legislation that would have cut all hydrocarbon use in the country, whether it arose domestically or abroad, to just 10% within a decade. Food starvation and painful lingering deaths are just a few thoughts and words that spring to mind.
Treason is another. What other word can possibly describe the wilful political decisions currently being made in countries like the UK to stop future extractions of hydrocarbons? How can politicians like the sinister Ed Miliband claim international leadership of the Net Zero fantasy and expect others to provide future food, fertiliser and medicines? Who will tend to an ailing G. Monbiot when the medicine cabinet is empty and Norway sells its ‘curses’ elsewhere.
Modern medicine depends heavily on hydrocarbons, both as raw material and chemical building blocks. Without them, the production of many essential drugs – from painkillers and antibiotics to cancer therapies – would be significantly more difficult, much more expensive, and in some cases impossible to produce at the required scale. Many pharmaceuticals are organic molecules and hydrocarbons form the backbone of the complex manufacturing chemistry. For example, hydrocarbon-derived benzene can be converted through controlled reactions into compounds such as phenol and aniline to synthesise drugs such as paracetamol. Treating propylene provides vital solvents and other manufacturing intermediaries.
Inactive substances made from hydrocarbons such as paraffin wax and certain emulsifiers help stabilise drugs, control their release in the body and improve their shelf life. Ointments and gels provide a stable way that active ingredients can be applied to the skin. Hydrocarbons are also widely used in drug delivery systems such as syringes and are widespread in the manufacture of protective clothing, IV bags, pill bottles and sterile packaging.
The current problems in the Gulf with the 20% reduction in the global supply of oil and gas are a dress rehearsal for absolute Net Zero. Within weeks of the shutdown of the Straits of Hormuz, prices of both medicines and fertilisers are soaring. Fertiliser prices are up 50%, and those countries with Net Zero ambitions and related high energy costs such as the UK and Australia face heavy food inflation as crop yields inevitably fall. Prices of medicines are reported by some pharmacies in the UK to have increased by 20-30%, partly due to disruptions in the supply chain, but also the rising cost of hydrocarbons. Even the Guardian seems to be catching on with an April 26th headline: ‘From syringes to stents: Iran war exposes NHS dependency on petrochemicals.’ The newspaper reports that the NHS spent £21.6 billion on medicines in 2024-25, so a touch of Net Zero-style inflation from the Gulf is likely to blow further massive holes in the budget of bankrupt Britain.
It is difficult to put a global figure on the amount of oil and gas used by the pharmaceutical business, but it is clear that many millions of tonnes of hydrocarbon-derived chemicals are consumed every year. Some drugs such as cancer treatments with highly complex molecules use large quantities of hydrocarbons and derivates such as solvents, reagents and processing aids. Inevitably, there have been suggested ‘green’ replacements but they face major, likely impossible, challenges in matching the performance, scalability and cost of traditional hydrocarbon-based processes. The existing infrastructure for petrochemical production is proven, cost-effective and capable of supplying global demand at the scale needed.
The sooner Net Zero is kicked into touch the better. This is getting serious. Entire generations, pampered and protected from hardship in ways unimaginable to their ancestors, have been brainwashed into accepting that carbon dioxide, the gas of life, somehow controls the climate thermostat. This despite a lack of proof from actual observations going back at least 600 million years. Cutting North Sea drilling and failing to frack the vast, easily extracted gas that could be sitting under our feet takes away our energy security. But even worse, it could spread hunger and once-controllable diseases across the land. It is the ultimate luxury belief from neo-Malthusian, Marxist-inspired ideologues who seek political control, seemingly at whatever cost.
History shows that this type of commanding collectivisation often ends in tears – witness the gulags and starvation of Stalin’s Soviet Union, the deliberate famines in Mao’s China, and not forgetting the mountains of human skulls that arose from Pol Pot’s Cambodian Ground Zero experiment.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Dale Vince…
…thought [prop driven] electric aircraft were the future. Then he found out the hard way that they are not. Still, he gets more bang for his subsidised buck from the Labour Party, which only needs a little nudge from time to time.
Caroline Lucas…
…can no longer recognise anything she knew at all in the Green Party of today. Gone is all that tree hugging, anti everything stuff, and in its place is the new ideology of islamism bolted on to general Marxist principles.
Treason is what we have before us in every Parliament going back to 1997. Parliament views the electorate with a visceral disdain, a view that was hardened in 2016 after that vote. The plebs have no clue about the EU so why would they know anything about energy and climate policy; Parliament and the technocracy know best. And, they say, net zero is the answer.
Self loathing, on a level hitherto unknown to us English, has set in deep into the nation and it’s metastasising throughout education into each and every cohort.
Starmer’s plan is to give 16 year olds the vote. They’ll vote Green. Only Reform is offering what rational people want.
But also to prevent them from access to social media because they’re too young for anything that grown-up.
The tool is blunt and designed to get adults too.
No credit card or photo driving licence – mine is paper – then you can’t tell your iPhone you are over 18
Islamarxist?
Sort of
My survival has depended for many years on a strong antidepressant treatment that keeps in check a dreadful anxiety and a pronounced depressive tendency. Sixty years ago, I would probably have thrown myself out of a window long ago, or else I would have been placed in a psychiatric hospital, for lack of anything better. Now I take my capsules every day and everything is fine. Conclusion: thanks to progress, thanks to oil.
The more I think about it, the more I tell myself that eco-leftists, Greens, and degrowth advocates dream only of ruling over a field of ruins. I don’t understand why, but I know they absolutely must not be allowed to have their way.
Ditto.
“would have cut all hydrocarbon use in the country, whether it arose domestically or abroad, to just 10%”
Ridiculously over the top, as usual. The Bill does not cut hydrocarbon use. It cuts carbon dioxide emissions. It says so, over and over. To emit CO2, you have to burn the hydrocarbon. Making all these vital medicines etc does not burn the hydrocarbon. No-one is proposing to limit these uses.
Why cut emissions of plant food? Take Irish Moss.
Irish moss contains carrageenan, a polysaccharide with gelling, thickening, and stabilizing properties, which is widely used in the food and pharmaceutical industries.
With 600ppm added CO2 the growth was increased to 120%
With 900ppm added CO2 the growth was increased to 137% – CDN Climate Nexus/ CO2 Science.
What’s not to like, Nick?
“No-one is proposing to limit these uses.”
_______________________________________________________________
Follow this LINK and you will find this quote:
“Oil is “a product incompatible with human survival.”
Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Do you vouch for the accuracy of that quotation from that source?
I’m puzzled. Have you no answer, no pithy comeback?
Why cut emissions of plant food?
I think we should be told.
They hate plants which get in the way of their gigantic solar and wind “farms”.
You wrote, ““No-one is proposing to limit these uses.” Well the people who run Just Stop Oil don’t want to use oil for anything. They aren’t “No-one”
But anyway, here ya go You Tube You should learn to do your home work before you open your mouth.
Well, it’s a source you like.
But let’s assume you found a nanoparticle of integrity to question your own ilk,
you can find this quote at earth.org., CNBC
times of Israel,
PBS,
Does PBS count as a good source, Nick?
Just as good as NPR. /s
Just search for:
“Oil is “a product incompatible with human survival.”
You’ll find a number of sources.
He wants to use it for some things that he deems useful and good and yet keep it in the ground.
Give Nick a straw. He can suck it out himself when his fridge is empty and his meds run out. He definitely needs his meds.
And the straw should contain absolutely no carbon..
… nor should it be created by any method resulting in CO2 emissions.
Human survival is incompatible without Oil.
And Guterres knows this.
And it’s the best way on the road to >500mio global population,
before using Killer Viruses and nuclear bomb.
And those will not only leave a massive artificial and deliberate fingerprint that can not be erased from history;
they may eventually even kill those who released them,
while protection from hunger is quite an easy thing.
Ah, back to eating bugs and liking it? Not him, but us I guess.
No one of those promoting communism wants to live in it –
Marx wasted his inheritance in record tiime and ended up in the most feudal cemetery.
Engels made a fortune the very capitalist way.
Trotsky lived in NYC luxury hotel+ Limousine + Chauffeur prior to 1917.
Armand Hammer(grandpa of actor Armie) made a fortune in Communist Russia while pretending to be communist in USA.
Bernie Sanders spent his honeymoon in Russia but decided to return to the USA where he had 2 times the chance to transform the USA, but sold his presidential run and took the money.
Please stick to the facts. With net zero for a long time, there will still be people all over the world, just not very many compared with 8 billion now.
They will have no antiseptics or antibiotics, no artificial fertilizers or powered vehicles. The infant mortality rate will be maybe 50% and the lifespan of the adult about 40. We will still have dogs and cats, horses and mules will pull our vehicles and a large proportion of the population will be living in rural areas cultivating local crops and breeding meat source domesticated animals.
Paradise!
Speaking of twaddle transmitting twits…
“To emit CO2, you have to burn the hydrocarbon.” Ah, that is so comforting to know that CO2 can’t be emitted chemically.
Breathe a sigh of… CO2 (~40,000ppm)
so how do you make concrete or steel then huh?
Without either = no buildings.
Nice deflection.
The claim was that “up to 20% of drilled oil and gas is turned into petrochemicals and these are used to make famine-reducing fertiliser, uber-useful plastics and life-saving medicines.”
Virtually 100% of these essential ingredients for modern society utilize both the mass and energy of fossil fuels for their production and distribution.
Sure a pharmaceutical synthesis could alone use organic chemicals and be powered with hypothetical “green” energy and then be packaged in a gelatin and hemp packaging and delivered via horse and wagon. But the reality is that today fossil fuels are necessary components of the entire supply chain in addition to serving as starting materials.
Further, modern fertilizers and plastics cannot me made economically in their required quantities without consuming both hydrocarbon mass and energy. I’d add that there are thousands of energy uses and products that should be added to the primary claim.
The issue is what this bill proscribes. And it is emissions, not hydrocarbon use. Even the slogan Net Zero refers to emissions, not hydrocarbon use.
I was referring to your use of the straw man fallacy to counter Morrison’s thesis.
Why bother? Nick is every bit as dodgy as Keir Starmer. And that’s saying something.
No question goes answered.
“And it is emissions, not hydrocarbon use”
Which is economic suicide that will lead to millions of deaths globally. Unbelievable!
“Net Zero refers to emissions, “
Which shows just how incredibly stupid the bill is..
Thank you for the confirmation.
Let’s say we get that – no emissions. How is that achieved? The only way I can see is to not burn the fuel parts of that oil.
So if that happens, how do oil companies make up for the lost revenue from the fuel fraction? Again, there is only one way that I see for that to happen.
Since only about 6% of crude is refined into something other than fuel (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/refining-crude-oil.php), those other products would have to increase over 1,500% in order to make up the difference.
Who said that revenue has to be maintained?
Mining oil for feedstock would be a smaller but very profitable operation. It could use the best of te existing sites.
There would be so little available, that those that had it could ask whatever price they wanted.
The rich could manage.. but the remaining 99% of the population will just have to go without.
SOCIALISM .. writ large.
Who said that revenue has to be maintained?
Simple economics and basic business sense: they still have to extract 100%, so the costs won’t change. Therefore, they will need to make up for it somewhere.
I thought you had some skill in mathematics.
Obviously I was misinformed.
so how are you proposing to make concrete “Nick the Numpty”?
Pharmaceutical production also generates CO2 as a by product of chemical synthesis, so not just burning hydrocarbons.
Makes sense. I was wondering about this.
Fermentation…
Why does soda pop, beer, and French champagne get a free pass on CO2 emissions? Human exhale 8 billion kg of CO2 everyday. To this should be added all the CO2 exhaled by domestic animals ranging from cattle to canaries. Why do humans and animals get a free pass on CO2 emissions?
Despite the emission of CO2 from all sources, a cubic meter of air contains a mere 0.8 grams of CO2. Where does all the CO2 go? Most of it is absorbed by the oceans by and surface fresh water.
As usual, you have no grasp of economic reality. Limit the burning of hydrocarbons and you limit the supply of hydrocarbons EVERYWHERE because of the increased cost of supply!
That includes for plastic auto parts, plastic insulation of wiring (how many miles of wire does you car and computer have?), etc. My guess is that most of the clocks in your house are housed in plastic, the containers under your kitchen sink are housed in plastic bottles, the gasoline for your lawn mower is stored in a plastic container, the carpet in your house is probably made from oil, the clothes on your back are probably *not* 100% natural fibers but made from synthetic fiber created from oil.
It just goes on and on and on and on…..
If you throw out *everything* in your house made from oil what would you do?
Typical for a Marxist liberal: you don’t care about the poor, you only care about power over people’s lives.
Nick doesn’t have a car or a lawnmower.
because of the increased cost of supply!
I just ran the numbers – looks like about 1500% increase in order to maintain the same revenue.
You fail to appreciate that if the oil industry is brought to its knees by green policies- that small amount of oil still produced for meds will rise in cost drastically due to the loss of economies of scale.
The cost would rise. But cost of oil feedstock is a tiny part of the cost of drug manufacture.
Sorry we have historic data to say that is bullshit
https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/breaking-down-the-cost-of-generic-drug-production-understanding-the-factors-influencing-affordability/
The cost is already so absurdly expensive, adding more will hardly be noticed, I suppose. Or perhaps I should say the sale price is absurdly expensive thanks to gigantic profits and absurdly high salaries for the top people.
The BMI of Guterres speaks for itself, that he’s not practicing what he’s preaching. This can also be applied to a lot of other politicians… who are on top of the “food chain”.
I don’t want everyone to die, I merely want everyone to stop breathing.
Like most of Nick’s complaints, the above is a distinction without a difference.
“Greta’s Perfect day without petroleum products” WUWT Six Years Ago
Clearly, there is a method to the madness of the fossil fuel-hating, twaddle transmitting twits’ (I am so stealing that) madness. They want the supply of hydrocarbons to diminish, which would force the prices up, thus making “green energy” more attractive. That is why they are cheering the Strait of Hormuz being choked off, because “Carbon”. They also love that it makes oil and gas seem unstable. “See? This shows that we can’t depend on oil and gas, because the supply can be choked off at the whim of a humanity-hating Islamic regime.”
Completely “forgetting” that they themselves not only want this to happen, but are actively engaged in choking off the supply themselves, by refusing to permit the extraction of known reserves of it. Hypocrites much?
When the Iran and Ukraine conflicts are over, I predict we’ll see the lowest prices for a barrel of oil ever! Oh, and of course Venezuela is going to ramp up production. Good times ahead!
I think that, where oil and gas are concerned, we mostly need for the Iran conflict to be over. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening any time soon. Without regime-change, there doesn’t seem to be an exit strategy. I hope I’m wrong.
The regime change will happen soon. Iran is losing half a billion dollars/day by not selling oil- and it’s getting very little of anything into the nation. The population will rise up very soon.
We can only hope.
The price has been driven much more by the futures market than by supply and demand.
Proof: The price jumped on the first day, roughly 2 weeks before any shortages would have been felt.
Makes sense that there are futures markets.
Yep.
Goes without saying we have a government problem.
With the climate alarmists and Net Zero fanatics, the consequences of swearing off fossil fuels are never important. If thousands die or left to suffer, or just inconvenienced, that doesn’t count because we ‘d be somehow saving the planet.
Pol Pot incited Cambodia to start again at Year Zero.
It’s simple. The lunatic left climatards hate humanity. They want them all dead.
Selfdefence comes into play here. Give them the so needed lead treatment. Guaranteed to solve it.