4BD Launch Event – 4 Billion Dead

[H simmens]

Roger Hallam is launching a new group claiming 4 billion people are at risk of dying by mid-century at 1 PM EST. 

I’m not a big fan of making claims like that. But those who know Roger know he has detailed theories of change to guide his actions.  

And no one can doubt his obvious courage and conviction. As well as his organizational successes. 

The well-known British climate scientist Bill Maguire will be joining him. 

Registration is at the link below. 

Roger is supportive of global cooling so it will be important to see whether and how much he, Bill and other speakers emphasize this dimension of the Climate Triad. As well as what other interventions they will argue for. 

I had sent a detailed direct message to Roger on Twitter several years ago making the case for cooling and urging him to come out in support. 

A few hours later he did so for what I believe was the first time. 

I think the timing was coincidental but you never know.

Herb

https://4billiondead.org/4bd-launch-event/

Herb Simmens

Author  of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A wonderful achievement, a SciencePoem, an Inspiration, a Prophecy, also hilarious, Dive in and see"

 Kim Stanley Robinson

@herbsimmens

[Dr. Soumitra Das]

Herb, thanks for sharing. The University of Exeter and IOFA report suggests the same. Sometimes, I refer them during my workshops.

Soumitra Das

Chairman and Executive Director, HCI USA

Chairman, HCI India

https://healthyclimateinitiative.org/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/4EF80292-E907-4A28-8D40-91E85F9A4D58%40gmail.com.

[dsp...@bigpond.net.au]

The 4 billion dead figure has little credence.

• The Planetary Insolvency report in figure 12 includes estimates of deaths at 2C of >2 billion  and at 3C of >4 billion people.

• The caption said the table contained "outputs contained in previous sections” of the report. But this was NOT the case.  There were no relevant ”outputs”.

• Then it was said that it came from the Climate Endgame paper, but its author said this was not the case. A person associated with the Solvency report told me:

• "They come from a definition of terms table in Luke Kemp's Climate Endgame paper - I mentioned this to Luke the other day, he confirmed that he does NOT make any forecasts about mortality in the paper." 

• As the caption to figure 12 says, it is a risk assessment matrix that illustrates general levels of risk, and the authors have now privately clarified that they "are absolutely NOT forecasts or predictions and we don't use them as such”. 

• So either it was too subtle in its distinctions, and/or it was a bit of a stuff up in that it was assumed that the 4 billion figure came from somewhere but it did not. So there is still a question of how the 4 billion figure was derived.

• I suggested to some people associated with the paper that  a correction or clarification be issued, at least repeating what they had said privately, that  the figures  "are absolutely NOT forecasts or predictions and we don't use them as such”. This has not been done.

• I had conversations with people working with Roger on his four billion dead project outlining the story above, and suggesting that going out with numbers pretending they have some scientific credence when they have none and even the authors have said they are not forecast or predictions and should not be used as such, was not a great idea.  It just feeds into claims of scientifically illiterate doomism. My advice didn’t get far. 

David Spratt

[Paul Klinkman]

I'm telling the community that this is a phishing attempt.  That's why it sounds like clickbait.  A fake verification site asked me to open my own computer's DOS window, paste some instructions into that DOS window and run them.  WARNING!  

Hackers, I care not if you delete this as long as it says "message deleted".

[John Nissen]

Hi David,

Thanks for the attachment.  On page 7, the text by the diagram says:

The average global temperature is likely to be 4C higher than in pre-industrial times by 2055 if greenhouse gas emissions are not slowed – that means a 16C rise in the Arctic (Source: Met Office Hadley Centre)

This was from 2010ish.  The 4C by 2055 is amazingly pessimistic.  The linear projections by Foster and Rahmstorf in 2025 (see Paul Beckwith posting), using a current warming rate of 1.46C per decade, are: 2C by 2037, 3C by 2060 and 4C by 2084, assuming CO2 emissions do not come down significantly - a pretty safe assumption!  I shall use these figures for the PRAG submission to the EU.

There may not be 4 billion deaths, but, with the Arctic meltdown unabated, there are likely to be 4 billion people attempting to migrate because of sea level rise and/or climate change, even before 4C is reached, and 16C in the Arctic (confirmed from your diagram).  The strain is liable to start WW3, if Trump hasn't started it already.

Cheers, John

On Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 9:41 PM 'David Spratt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Anyone can guess a number.  What does that show?  Perhaps is could be an expert elicitation if it came from a 4C-impact expert, but I am certainly none one, and I doubt if anyone on this list is.

 

James Lovelock,  Schellnhuber , Kevin Anderson and others have all has something to say about it (see below).

 

My point is that Hallam assumed that there was a substantial report justifying the number, when there was no such thing.

The French Govt did a 4C report in 2025:

https://www.adaptation-changement-climatique.gouv.fr/comprendre/strategie/plan-national-dadaptation0  

In 2019, Johan Rockström, the head of one of Europe’s leading research institutes, warned that in a 4°C-warmer world it would be ”difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that… There will be a rich minority of people who survive with modern lifestyles, no doubt, but it will be a turbulent, conflict-ridden world” 

Source: Gaia, V. (2019, 19 May 2019). The heat is on over the climate crisis. Only radical measures will work. The Guardian.

I did a primer on 4 degrees  fourteen years ago:

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kiXgVnehPbYZ8BGaDoESX3073IRw1O0F

Here is the relevant text from 2012, so a litte jaded:

A 4C global average rise means on average about 5.5–6C warmer over land, especially

away from the coast. Where people could actually live with land suitable for growing

food (with the much greater evaporation rates implicit at +6C), and above existing deltas

and flood plains as sea-levels rise, would be limited. On 30 November 2007, Reuters

reported:

Children born today in countries such as Spain and Italy will witness a 7 degrees Celsius

rise in summer temperatures by the end of their lives, the European Union’s environment

watchdog warned on Tuesday.

Much of the tropics would be too hot, much of the temperate regions desertified.

The “4 degrees and beyond” conference heard that 4C could render half of the world

uninhabitable. Populations would be driven towards the poles, and practically-speaking

that means the north pole. How many would survive? On 29 September 2009, at the

conclusion of the “4 degrees and beyond” conference, “The Scotsman” reported:

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only

around 10 per cent of the planet’s population – around half a billion people – will survive if

global temperatures rise by 4C...

Current Met Office projections reveal that the lack of action in the intervening 17 years – in

which emissions of climate changing gases such as carbon dioxide have soared – has set

the world on a path towards potential 4C rises as early as 2060, and 6C rises by the end of

the century.

Anderson, who advises the government on climate change, said the consequences were

“terrifying”. “For humanity it’s a matter of life or death,” he said. “We will not make all human

beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the

right parts of the world and survive. But I think it’s extremely unlikely that we wouldn’t have

mass death at 4C. If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4C, 5C or

6C, you might have half a billion people surviving.”

Earlier, in March 2009, at the Copenhagen science conference, Professor Hans Joachim

Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute, and one of Europe’s most eminent

climate scientists, told his audience that at 4C, population “... carrying capacity

estimates (are) below 1 billion people.”

Three years earlier, in 2006, James Lovelock — scientist extraordinaire, inventor of the

microwave oven and propounder of the Gaia thesis — told an audience that the Earth

has a fever that could boost temperatures by up to 8C (more on this later), making large

parts of the surface uninhabitable and threatening billions of peoples’ lives. He said a

traumatised Earth might only be able to support less than a tenth of its six billion people:

“We are not all doomed. An awful lot of people will die, but I don’t see the species dying

out... A hot Earth couldn’t support much over 500 million.”

Sources

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/schellnhuber-plenaryspeaker-12march2009.pdf

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28841108.htm

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53238020101130

David Spratt

On 8 Mar 2026, at 8:19 am, Paul Beckwith <paulhenr...@gmail.com> wrote:

David, what is your estimate or guess? Put a number out there yourself:)!!

Everybody else on this channel? Don’t just be an observer, put out an estimate or guess yourself.

Mortality versus temperature…

You may even star in one of my future videos:) 

No pressure…

On Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 4:12 PM 'David Spratt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: 4 billion dead figure.

• The Planetary Insolvency report in figure 12 includes estimates of deaths at 2C of >2 billion  and at 3C of >4 billion people.

• The caption said the table contained "outputs contained in previous sections” of the report. But this was NOT the case.  There were no relevant ”outputs”.

• Then it was said that it came from the Climate Endgame paper, but its author said this was not the case. A person associated with the Solvency report told me:

• "They come from a definition of terms table in Luke Kemp's Climate Endgame paper - I mentioned this to Luke the other day, he confirmed that he does NOT make any forecasts about mortality in the paper." 

• As the caption to figure 12 says, it is a risk assessment matrix that illustrates general levels of risk, and the authors have now privately clarified that they "are absolutely NOT forecasts or predictions and we don't use them as such”. 

• So either it was too subtle in its distinctions, and/or it was a bit of a stuff up in that it was assumed that the 4 billion figure came from somewhere but it did not. So there is still a question of how the 4 billion figure was derived.

• I suggested to some people associated with the paper that  a correction or clarification be issued, at least repeating what they had said privately, that  the figures  "are absolutely NOT forecasts or predictions and we don't use them as such”. This has not been done.

• I had conversations with people working with Roger on his four billion dead project outlining the story above, and suggesting that going out with numbers pretending they have some scientific credence when they have none and even the authors have said they are not forecast or predictions and should not be used as such, was not a great idea.  It just feeds into claims of scientifically illiterate doomism. My advice didn’t get far. 

David Spratt

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4EF80292-E907-4A28-8D40-91E85F9A4D58%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/703075D4-1E12-46A0-8C06-95CFAD3A0815%40bigpond.net.au.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CABHiWwHao%2Bf8EM_NxJtpsJg25gRP-CQigD__3pshg-NN2Qvn0w%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/955C7CED-99EE-4661-B3AC-62B9DEDB16BC%40bigpond.net.au.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Ho John and David

Using my WTF model (based on FaIR) there's no plausible way we could get to 4^oC of warming by 2055.  Annual CO₂ emissions would have to peak at 135Gt this year and remain there, for us to get to 4^oC of warming by 2050.  That's using an ECS of 4^oC.  With an ECS of 3.24^oC the warming is 0.2^oC less.  In these scenarios it gets to around 9^oC by 2100!

Regards

RobertC

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_Fxr4YhgKkJj11LmhRTsdr-bna-x_GwVcaa42z4COVoDkRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Klinkman]

This looks like an attempt to phish, to break into everyone's personal computer.  

The site wants you to "verify who you are".  It's not captcha!!  So you click "I'm not a robot" and then it give you instructions on running a powershell.  Then it slips some address into your powershell for you, and then if you hit return, bad things happen.

Yours,
Paul Klinkman

[rob de laet]

Hi Herb, 

it is likely based on the planetary solvency report, which the UK actuarians, led by Sandy Trust (whom you know from Exeter) wrote https://actuaries.org.uk/media/wqeftma1/planetary-solvency-finding-our-balance-with-nature.pdf

Best, 

Rob de Laet 

Project Lead Cooling the Climate

Member of the EcoRestoration Alliance

Fellow of Global Evergreening Alliance

Fellow fo the Schumacher Institute

Planetary Solvency Taskforce

Co-founder of Senang Eco Services

WhatsApp: +55 71 992617846

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4EF80292-E907-4A28-8D40-91E85F9A4D58%40gmail.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

A further interesting detail to add to David's comments below is that the reference to the 'Extreme' climate impact category included in the full Planetary Solvency report is quietly dropped in accompanying material from the Institute of Actuaries.  The highest risk scenario they mention elsewhere is 'Catastrophic' (defined as >2^oC by 2050).  They claim this only entails the death of not less than 25% of the human population (>2 billion).  

I wonder why the possibility of warming of >3^oC by 2050 was no longer considered worthy of a mention in the summary material presented to policymakers, the media and the public.

Regards

RobertC

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/59eecb7c-5cbe-4752-84ba-8661ee254492n%40googlegroups.com.

[Robert Chris]

And here's another gem. 

The report classifies Extreme climate change in the probability category of 'Possible' (risk description in Figure 11).  This category is defined to mean a likelihood of 40%-60% (bottom of Figure 12).  In effect, they are claiming that there's even odds that warming will exceed 3^oC by 2050.  

Those odds don't look too good to me!  Moreover, the decision to suppress this risk in the accompanying material rather than highlight it, seems to me to require a proper explanation.

Regards

RobertC