Your number for the energy in a human body is way off. 3000 kcal is merely how much food/energy a person consumes in a day or two.
Figuring it another way, the average human weighs ~80 kg, which is 12% lipid and 20% protein (and ~2% other organic molecules that I will ignore.) Total energy content in fat is 9kcal/g * 9600 g = 86400 kcal, and in protein is 4 kCal/g * 16000 g = 64000 kcal. That’s a total of ~150,000 kcal, or ~0.5 humans per gallon of gasoline.
How would you parse that so as to include only those affected by CO2 produced by oil and that produced by, say, coal? Would you simply attribute all of the estimated deaths to oil and oil products and then parse that into deaths per gallon of gasoline, even though gasoline itself doesn’t comprise all of what oil is used for?
Ah, thanks…I was going from memory, being too lazy to look it up, and must have gotten my figures crossed wrt caloric intake and amount of calories in a body (which I got from something on Fallout talking about eating people and probably completely mixed up).
.5 humans per gallon would be even more of a bargain! 
All I can say is that a book I have, about the San Francisco cable cars, has a picture taken in 1900 or so, up Market Street in heavy smog–before the era of the automobile, of course, but when most people used coal and oil for heating. The sky is hazy enough to rival Los Angeles.
Can you point to one person who died directly due to climate change? And prove that what happened would not have occurred without AGW?
Additionally, how many people are alive due to the fact that there is C02 in the atmosphere?
Slee
Cite?
I’d say currently over 6 billion, but maybe that’s overstating things. Certainly there are a lot more people alive today than a century ago, or a century before that, and most of that is due to the use of fossil fuels (and, of course, better sanitation and medicines).
Of course, too much of a good thing can be bad, and those figures might start to shift (especially if we lose a large percentage of our arable land due to climate change) as things go bad, but to date it’s definitely a positive balance wrt people who have died verse people who are alive because of fossil fuels.
Lets not conflate “oil” and “fossil fuel”. Oil is a fossil fuel, but coal and natural gas are fossil fuels that aren’t oil.
I don’t think it’s fair to attribute the industrial revolution to oil. Coal is what really powered the industrial revolution. And without petroleum we’d still have steam trains and steam ships and steam shovels and steam cars and steam zeppelins. And luminiferous ether, probably. And goggles, lots of goggles. And steam-driven mechanical computers. We’d eat, drink, shit, and piss steam.
But coal can be converted to liquid fuels, so we’d probably have all sorts of internal combustion engines…just powered either by biofuels, or synthetic liquid fuels from coal. Liquid fuels are great for all sorts of reasons, if we needed liquid fuels but couldn’t pump them directly out of the ground we could manufacture them. We should keep carefully distinct the difference between petroleum as a energy source, and liquid fuels used in transportation. Petroleum is something like a third of our total energy production budget, and almost all of it is used as transportation fuel.
We could manufacture the transportation fuels we needed, and generate the energy some other way. Granted this would be more expensive and inefficient, which is why we mostly don’t do this today. Why manufacture liquid hydrocarbons via the Fischer–Tropsch process when you can just pump them out of the ground at half the price? But we don’t HAVE to that. We could stop using petroleum to make gasoline and diesel and still have most of our current modern economy, albeit a bit poorer and maybe more polluted.
True enough…oil is a subset of fossil fuel. However, let’s not under rate oil and the various distillates that come from its impact on things like agriculture and medicine wrt an exploding world population and growing standard of living either. Like I said, it might be overstating things to say that it’s increased the current population by 6 billion…perhaps it’s only 5 or maybe only 4. But that it has increased it in a non-zero way is, to me anyway, without question…as is the fact that it’s had a net positive effect, even if the negatives seem to be piling up now that we are a century into it’s widespread use. Unless global warming is at the extreme end of the scale (which it could be), I doubt it will be a net negative, at least in any of our lifetimes. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be figuring out ways to, having used it to benefit us all, ween ourselves off of it an move on to the new paradigm.
The impact on agriculture is mostly from natural gas, not oil, as it provides most of the hydrogen for ammonia production. Fixed nitrogen has been the primary limiting factor on global caloric output. Growing more food and providing a better standard of living then leads to decreasing birth rate.
Today that is so, though oil still has an impact even there. However, most of the machines to prepare fields, plant, harvest and logistically move the food from field to market are and more importantly have been based on and oil based transport system. Even the rail logistics systems mainly use diesel fueled electric trains. The real population explosion started with coal based systems but have gone up even more so since the various oil based transport systems have become wide spread. Also oil and various distillates had and still have a huge impact on various products and processes that have also added to not only world wide wealth creation but to things that support a large rise in population.
Twice? Once for each butt cheek?