Carbon dioxide reductions – the Chancellor is right and the BBC wrong

I awoke to the sound of a Radio 4 interview concerning CO2 reduction. A poor interview produced no figures, but left listeners with the opinion that China, the USA and others are doing more to cut their CO2 emissions than the UK. The Chancellor was wrong by implication to warn us that the UK is in danger of  doing more CO2 reduction (by higher energy prices)than competitors which could just result in  more of our industry going elsewhere. The UK was urged to do more.

I have found UN figures which tell us the story of the 20 year period from 1990-2010, the first 20 years of the Kyoto targets and the CO2 campaign. Over that time period US CO2 emissions rose by 20%, China’s by 165%, and the UK cut by 7.6%. Other comparable countries like Australia saw a 42% increase, Japan a 14% increase and France a 0.8% increase. Only Germany of the majors did  more than the UK to cut its CO2 output.

In the last 3 years the US had developed a lot of cheaper shale gas which has helped cut its CO2 output. Doing it that way helps competitiveness, as it cuts energy costs. The UK is doing it the dear way, through renewables, which does the opposite. It puts prices up and means fewer industrial jobs in the UK.

I think the Chancellor was right to say the UK should not follow policies which simply divert good business from the UK to other centres. Policies which develop new cheaper sources of energy which also cut CO2 would be a good idea.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

94 Comments

  1. lifelogic
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Indeed the incessant and endlessly moronic BBC line on the green issue is totally absurd. Endlessly expounded, usually by innumerate arts graduates (interviewed by other innumerate art graduates) who often do not know the difference between a mega watt and an actually unit of energy, nor what positive feed back is nor that green energy often cost four or five times the price of gas powered electricity and is anyway worth far less – as it is not even on demand.

    Get some decent honest impartial engineers, scientists and economists to tell us the truth on this gigantic scam for a change. Step one is to scrap all the state subsidies.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

      But the partly line from Cameron, Clegg and Miliband is almost exactly the BBC line too.

      • Hope
        Posted November 7, 2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

        There in lies the problem. Cameron’s anted this and had it introduced in the coalition agreement. Today Cleggt ries to justify name calling of senior Tories who disagrees with him. No surprise there as Lib Dems always make derogatory remarks about anyone who do not agree with them. They have no substance to the argument so name call instead.

        Lord Jones urges the UK to leave the EU and clearly stats Cameron will not again anything from a referendum even if one were held.

        Cameron still allowing Haywood to block the truth coming out about the Iraq war. Disgraceful.

        • zorro
          Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

          (Are there? ed ) reasons to block the truth coming out….. Doubtless, they will state that it is a national security matter. Yet still they expect the public to believe them….

          zorro

          • zorro
            Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink
          • lifelogic
            Posted November 8, 2013 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

            Clearly there are reasons, in the view of the establishment and Cameron, one assumes.

            It would be a huge embarrassment to some powerful liars. How many thousands of pointless deaths and injuries is it now?

          • Lifelogic
            Posted November 8, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

            These thousands of dead and their poor relatives clearly it seems, in the eyes of the establishment anyway, simply do not have a right to know the truth when it is embarrassing to government.

            Perhaps like the Hillsborough victims who were libeled so dreadfully by the authorities, they will get it after about 24 years.

      • Kenneth
        Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

        All mainstream parties will try to stay within BBC-approved policies. This is why they are sound and look the same. Even UKIP is learning that appeasing the BBC is the best way to get airtime.

        That is why most right wing politicians are not invited on the telly.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted November 8, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

          Indeed look at the Question Time panel last night:

          Defence minister Anna Soubry MP (who on earth would appoint her?), shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry MP equally daft, UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP a sole voice of reason to be ridiculed by all, lefty poet Benjamin Zephaniah (who was actually a bit better than usual) and the ex-criminal and very bitter Huhne wife Vicky Pryce.

          Who on earth decides on these people?

          Not to mention the total lack of balance of the oddly BBC think audience.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted November 8, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

          Indeed just look at the Question Time panel last night:

          Defence minister Anna Soubry MP (who on earth would appoint her?), shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry MP equally daft, UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP a sole voice of reason to be ridiculed by all, lefty poet Benjamin Zephaniah (who was actually a bit more sensible than usual) and the ex-criminal and very bitter Huhne wife Vicky Pryce.

          Who on earth decides on these people?

          Not to mention the total lack of balance of the oddly BBC think audience.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      Furthermore many of the green policies like burning wood imported from the US, PV and wind do not actually reduce CO2 and certainly not in the short term anyway. This as building and installation of all these absurdities produces a great deal of CO2.

      • Hope
        Posted November 7, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

        It has never been disclosed how much energy it takes to build, transport and erect wind machines on land and in the sea, let alone the cost to dismantle and dispose of. It has always been established whether wind machines cause more CO2 emissions than they save. Yet they cost us all a fortune and Clegg has the audacity to call us all names. He is not fit for office and the Lib Dems need to be wiped off the map.

        Cameron does not deserve any loyalty from Tory voters for similar reasons, he has insulted us and expects us to vote for him. Not me. I will vote with my feet and do not see any difference or threat if Labour get in. Old Labour Miliband New Labour Cameron.

        • uanime5
          Posted November 9, 2013 at 12:39 am | Permalink

          It has never been disclosed how much energy it takes to build, transport and erect wind machines on land and in the sea, let alone the cost to dismantle and dispose of. It has always been established whether wind machines cause more CO2 emissions than they save.

          Given how much CO2 is emitted from gas and coal power plants it would be impossible for wind turbines, which don’t burn any fuel, to produce more emissions.

          More CO2 is also produced from building gas, coal, and nuclear plants than building wind turbines.

          • TT
            Posted November 12, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

            You spectacularly and probably deliberately miss the point here. What is important is whether the amount of CO2 they “save” over their lifetime relative to other methods of electricity production, exceeds the CO2 emitted to build, maintain and dismantle them.

            I’ve read that this result is negative, ie they net add to CO2 but even if that’s not the case you still have to weigh up that the electricity they produce is 4 times as expensive and many other negative factors.

    • Bazman
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

      Cars are going to get greener in many different ways, through electrification and hybrid cars. But you also have advances in train technologies. We can’t forget that. Trains are not static, just like car innovation is not static.Even when you include, in addition to the tailpipe, the CO2 emissions from infrastructure, fuel production and the supply chain, on average rail will still have a lower carbon footprint than road travel, when comparing life-cycle to life-cycle. How are 100’s of million of Indians and Chines all going to have a car each in the future?
      Are we to scrap ‘all’ subsidies to fossil fuel as as well for the damage they cause and tax subsidies Yes they do and they are. Or for nuclear and especially any research in to nuclear fusion which maybe perpetual motion.

      • Edward2
        Posted November 11, 2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

        “How are 100′s of million of Indians and Chines all going to have a car each in the future?”

        How are you going to stop them if that is what they want?

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted November 8, 2013 at 2:59 am | Permalink

      lifelogic–We are governed by whom we elect, not by people who know what they are doing. The Arts is much more just a matter of opinion, with much less by way of correct or incorrect than Science. It’s a cuddly matter of opinion and discussion and essay writing whether say Baudelaire is better than Moliere (or whatever) and everybody can join in but when it comes to solving a third order differential equation (or whatever) that is something else, most wouldn’t have a prayer and people are going to shy away from anybody that can do it. A lot of the Arts is more like a hobby or entertainment and the idea that Science and the Arts should be treated as equally important is up the pole. Rosenkavalier was the worst night of my life. We want more elections about decisions, ie referenda, preferably by people qualified to give those opinions instead of elections about people including these days how pretty they are.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 8, 2013 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

        I had not noticed any pretty candidates are there any?

    • Richard1
      Posted November 8, 2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      A winning policy for the Conservatives for the next election would be simply to say that there will be a UK public enquiry into the science of ‘climate change’ and the economics of the proposed remedies. The reason for this would be the failure of the IPCC sanctioned models to forecast the climate correctly, the high costs of current policy, and the fact that most countries arnt burdening themselves in this way. UK citizens and taxpayers therefore have a right to a robust and transparent public investigation of the whole issue. Both ‘deniers’ and ‘alarmists’ from around the world can be invited to put their case and be subjected to questioning and scrutiny. No-one should be listened to who will not open themselves to questioning. There should be no pre-conceived conclusions (as there were in Lord Stern’s report). Then we can decide on sensible policies when the results are known. Who could object to this idea given the importance of the issue?

      • Richard1
        Posted November 8, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

        Prof Kelly, prof of Technology at Cambridge has written to the Times this am to suggest exactly this.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 9, 2013 at 12:44 am | Permalink

        If the Conservatives said they were going to ignore all the scientific evidence because they didn’t like it no one would vote for them. People prefer politicians who base their decisions on facts, rather than their own delusions.

        You also failed to provide any evidence to support your claims regarding IPCC models or an explanation as to why any failure to forecast future temperature rises negates all the evidence showing that the average global temperature has risen for over a decade because of CO2 levels.

        Finally you call for a debate shows you don’t have any understanding of science. Science is based on what can be proven through testing, not what appeals to right wing groups.

        • Edward 2
          Posted November 9, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

          Just a shame for you Uni that the predicted rises are not occurring as per the scientists consensus views.
          Had a look at the Al Gore film and original IPCC report recently?
          Those pesky islands still not under water.
          Glaciers they named still solid ice
          Gulf stream still working.
          Runaway temperature rises from 2000 just not happening. Etc etc.
          Any ideas why?

        • Richard1
          Posted November 9, 2013 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

          We both hide behind pseudonames, but I suspect based on posts here, that I have at least as good understanding of science as you. I have not suggested Conservatives ignore scientific evidence, I have suggested they subject supposed scientific evidence and the policies which have been adopted to proper scrutiny. Debate is needed as there is a question as to which policies should be adopted. The fact that you and others on the left are so resistant to debate and so reliant on insults emphasizes the need for this issue to be opened to proper public scrutiny.

          Coincidently Cambridge’s professor of technology made the same call as I did yesterday in a letter to the Times. Is he also therefore ignorant of science in your view?

    • Junkk Male
      Posted November 8, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

      “innumerate arts graduates (interviewed by other innumerate art graduates)”

      Hence, for £4Bpa, by way of information and education, one is given:

      “…no figures, but left listeners with the opinion…”

      Or, without the tautological excess, a typical BBC ‘report’.

      • Bazman
        Posted November 8, 2013 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

        Or Purple faced Colonels interviewing each other with ear trumpets?
        Sounds more plausible.
        Ram it.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 9, 2013 at 12:35 am | Permalink

      The BBC often has scientists who state that climate change is man made because that’s what the scientific evidence shows. Economists and engineers have nothing to add to any discussion about climate change.

      • Edward 2
        Posted November 9, 2013 at 9:59 am | Permalink

        Better tell your pal who is in charge of the IPCC Uni, who is an economist.
        Oops

  2. Roy Grainger
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    It is true that using shale gas reduces CO2 emissions compared with using oil or coal for the same amount of energy. This doesn’t get much publicity. The environmentalists are truly conflicted: they want lower CO2, lower energy prices, no nuclear power, no use of shale gas and (I assume) they don’t want the lights to go out. These desires are mutually exclusive. I guess in the next 5-10 years the lights WILL start to go out due to demand outstripping supply at certain times and only then will a sensible energy policy be implemented. Of course global warming would help us all to reduce our energy use …

  3. oldtimer
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    Graham Stringer MP made the excellent point (to Lord Stern at the Energy and CC Cttee the other day) that UK green policies were subsidising Chinese exports to the UK – with the clear implication that this was at the cost of UK jobs. Lord Stern agreed with him – but did not want to do anything about it for at least ten years! Stuff the workers seemed to be his line.

    Lord Stern`s evidence and responses to questions revealed a closed mind about climate policies and the thinking behind them. It is clear that the policy is and can only be sustained by obfuscation and sustained propaganda of the kind put out by the BBC. It relies on denial of actual evidence and clinging to climate models that have been demonstrated to be worthless.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

      When I read things written by people like Lord Stern, I am often left wondering if they genuinely believe the guff they write. Surely they cannot?

      He clearly was quite clever a while back (mathematics at Peterhouse, Cambridge). So how can he believe this nonsense? Perhaps the rot set in with Economics at Oxford, maybe he met to many PPE, career politician types.

      It is clearly bonkers, or at the very least a gross exaggeration of a non problem, on any rational analysis?

      Mind you, I often think the same of many believers in the older religions too.
      Perhaps on the precautionary principal we should waste billions of taxes on actions to avoid these predicted Hells too?

    • forthurst
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

      “Lord Stern`s evidence and responses to questions revealed a closed mind about climate policies and the thinking behind them.”

      The Global Warming Hoax is a conspiracy and Stern is in on it.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 8, 2013 at 9:55 am | Permalink

        It looks that way to me. Either that or they really are so stupid as to believe this green guff.

        I find the latter explanation rather difficult to believe. It is surely clear now to nearly everyone sensible that it is a gigantic scam against the public purse. Yet only three was it Tories voted against the absurd climate change act!

        • Bazman
          Posted November 8, 2013 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

          R U sensibull? Never.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 9, 2013 at 12:48 am | Permalink

      Just because Lord Stern based his decision on evidence, rather than pandering to the deniers, doesn’t make this comments wrong.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 10, 2013 at 8:33 am | Permalink

        Well what evidence.? 15 years of no recent warming and some computer projection models that can be adjusted to show anything one wanted to?

        They cannot predict the world climate for 2015 or even a week on Tuesday let alone 2100! Do they understand what a chaotic complex system the weather is? How can they predict it? They cannot even predict the suns output with any certainty.

  4. Terry
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    I have never understand the big panic over carbon emissions. CO2 represents less than 5% of all greenhouse gases and is it vital for plant life to thrive. I do not know who hijacked this anti-CO2 proposition but I do know that it has made the Head of the IPCC, a multi millionaire. Air pollution is the villain here , not CO2 nor Carbon. And to combat air pollution we do not need daft windmills.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 9, 2013 at 12:51 am | Permalink

      Perhaps if you didn’t ignore all the scientific evidence you’d know why CO2 is such a big problem. Higher CO2 levels raise the global temperature and CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over a century, as a result the effects of high CO2 levels will remain for some time and will get worse if we don’t cut CO2 emissions.

      Also why is air pollution the villain and what evidence do you have to back up this claim?

      • Edward2
        Posted November 9, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

        Uni
        Each year air pollution damages the health of hundreds of thousands of people and a similar number die prematurely from respiratory illnesses.

        Far more than will die due to the less than one degree rise in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.

      • Steve Brodie
        Posted November 13, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

        In the past many more died in the London smog than ever died of heat stroke.

  5. Rtd Colonel
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    The German position will soon be reversed with their ‘dash for coal’ – why are the ‘caring warmists’ so keen to take us back to the middle ages – surely there are limits to the benefits of smugly demonstrating your right on credentials when the lights start going out and industry ups and leaves.

    • A different Simon
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      Tens of thousands of Germans are being displaced to make way for the open cast coal mining to supply this .

      In Germany the greens are anti-nuclear , anti-coal and anti-gas .

      As the Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore who was a founder member of Greenpeace and disputes AGW says ; the green movement is anti-human being .

  6. Bryan
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    I too listened to that programme and it was clear the direction it would take from their main interviewee – Lord Deben, who may just have some business interest in the green area.

    As you have reported Mr Redwood, Lord Deben refuted what Mr Osborne had said and cited as his proof that China was in fact doing better in reducing emissions than the UK because it would reach the peak of its CO2 emissions in the mid 2020’s.

    I may not quite understand this, so please correct me if I am wrong, but surely continuing to pump out CO2 gas at an increasing rate for the next 10 or so years is not a reduction?

    I am not however a politician and therein may lie my ignorance!

    What is the BBC’s excuse?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

      I remember when this “Lord Deben” was just a pretty useless Tory minister called John Gummer, before somebody decided that his services to the nation were so invaluable that he must be appointed as a legislator-for-life.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 8, 2013 at 10:01 am | Permalink

        He was still pushing his unscientific, soothsaying on the BBC the other day. As the son of a Church of England minister he perhaps understands well the huge power of religion and imagined visions of hell over the gullible.

  7. Bob
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    A poor interview produced no figures, but left listeners with the opinion that China, the USA and others are doing more to cut their CO2 emissions than the UK.

    A good reason to stop buying TV Licences.
    Save the rain forests!

  8. Tad Davison
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    I’m afraid this is fairly typical of the BBC. I’ve had another set-to with them this morning for their biased and indefensible journalism. But there are those, even on these pages, that will argue black is white and distort the facts in the pursuit of a curious ideology – even when provided with hard evidence that disproves their case.

    I maintain it is best to look after the British economy and our own people first, as their needs are immediate. We should not do anything, however laudable it might seem, that would set us at a disadvantage and send us back to the stone age, as few countries would seek to emulate our example. Far better to enable industry and make it prosper. After creating a pool of wealth, we can then fund development into alternative sources of energy – provided they are cost effective. There is little point in having something that is prohibitively expensive to use.

    And to those who say that it’s all been done, we know what’s out there, and no new ways can be found – that’s plain bunkum. There was once a time before even the most familiar technology had been invented, and it was thought that humankind had advanced as much as it could.

    Necessity is the mother of invention, and financial incentive is the key to giving any research and development the all-important traction. Those who would penalise businesses by making them pay for dear energy, really are on the wrong side of the argument. Their policy is self-defeating, whereas generating wealth in the first instance, will also generate the funds needed for research into low-carbon alternatives.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • uanime5
      Posted November 9, 2013 at 12:54 am | Permalink

      After creating a pool of wealth, we can then fund development into alternative sources of energy – provided they are cost effective. There is little point in having something that is prohibitively expensive to use.

      Everything is expensive when first created. Examples are car, computers, and TVs. It’s only over time that people find more cost effective ways of making something.

  9. cosmic
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Do you really expect anything else from the BBC?

    Here’s a link to a Spectator article. It should be OK because the Spectator is a site you have in your list of links.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8758121/heres-a-bbc-scandal-that-should-really-make-you-disgusted/

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

      Indeed an excellent article by James Delingpole as usual, the BBC is a compete disgrace. It is doing huge damage with it propaganda and bias. We all have to pay a licence fee to have push patent drivel pushed at us, worse still many swallow it all.

  10. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Where did you hear this?

    Oh, BBC Radio 4 …

    Must be true then, it’s not as if we’re paying for them to broadcast lies.

  11. Mark B
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    John Redwood MP said;
    “I think the Chancellor was right to say the UK should not follow policies which simply divert good business from the UK to other centres.”

    Indeed you are correct, but only as far as to agree with the Chancellor. If one wishes to have a change in policy regarding energy, then you will have to speak to our masters in Brussels. It is they who decide on what happens here !

    They are already moving against the exploitation of shale gas which will mostly affect the UK and Poland. So no chance of us looking to that to boost the economy like it did for the US.

    Being part of the EU is truly proving to be a Millstone around our necks. At which point do you think it will finally break. Our neck, not the Millstone.

  12. Vanessa
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    We all know that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is increasing but that we are having colder and harsher winters – we expect politicians to lie to us if they can increase our taxes with their stupid ideas.

    But please stop talking about de-carbonising our environment. Carbon is NOT Carbon Dioxide. Carbon is what Diamonds are made of and we do not have a carbon “footprint”. This idiotic “religion” is costing us ridiculous amounts of money and to adapt (if the weather is getting harsher) would be a lot less expensive that trying to stop it.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

      Indeed it is harmless, odourless, transparent, plant & tree food, not black coal or carbon just pleasant clean carbon dioxide.

      Also there is simply no scientific concept of “renewable energy” despite what physic GCSE books now say. Energy is just converted from one type to another, ending up as heat and increased entropy.

      Wave energy, tidal, PV, wind, geothermal, nuclear, sunlight etc. may be long lived or even very long lived, but renewable they are clearly not. “renewable energy” is a pure political/religious construct not science at all it is meant merely to mean “nice” by the loopy greens.

      Nuclear power & later nuclear fusion on earth could also be very, very, long lived too.

      • Vanessa
        Posted November 8, 2013 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

        Well said ! All dreamt up by politics and all lies.

    • Bazman
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

      Carbon is what lots of foods and fuels are made of. I think ‘carbo’ is, with my lack of education, Latin for coal or pasta as it’s Italian. I think carbon dioxide may have some carbon in it. Just following the carbon trail Vanessa. “Make us a cuppa before that water boils to carbon love” As I often tell my wife who never warms the pot never mind the world.

      • A different Simon
        Posted November 8, 2013 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        Bazman ,

        Obviously CO2 has carbon dioxide in it but it has even more oxygen in it .

        When talking about sequestering carbon dioxide underground politicians always talk about CCS rather than OCS or even CO2CS ?

        Somehow I don’t think a scheme to sequester oxygen underground would get positive airplay , even from the BBC .

  13. Neil Craig
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    IK so the BBC lied or perhaps misled without actually stating, which if anything is worse since it shows they know the truth and the concealment could not be accidental.

    But the important question is whether cutting CO2 is desirable. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is causing damaging warming (no real evidence that it is causing warming of 1-2 C which would be beneficial either). The one thing we can say for sure is that it increases crop growth and that this has benefited the world to the tune of trillions of dollars.

    And yes – the state broadcasting monopoly know that too.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      The BBC must indeed know that surely? They must employ some sensible, science people surely?

    • uanime5
      Posted November 9, 2013 at 12:58 am | Permalink

      @Neil Craig

      What about the IPCC report that examined hundreds of scientific studies to prove that there was warming and that this warming isn’t beneficial because it has resulted in increased crop failure? Funny how you ignored all the evidence that you’re wrong.

      • Edward 2
        Posted November 9, 2013 at 10:07 am | Permalink

        The crop failures you refer to were actually caused by drouts and civil wars but they have been “scientifically” blamed instead on global warming.
        Overall world crop yields have risen, which is why we are managing to feed a level of world population people like said was impossible.
        Look it up on t’internet.

  14. REPay
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    The reason for this editorial line, is that many BBC senior executives who set the tone are insulated from the real economy in their own lives, so rising energy bills matter little to them except as a stick with which to beat on business and the government. They tend to ignore facts and figures on most topics where these clash with their Guardianista view of the world and pathologize opponents. (I have noticed that clue words – conservative, right wing, denier, skeptic are regularly used to signpost any speaker with whom they disagree…they tend not to any adjectives to describe the statist, leftist, right-on, “progressive” speakers who chime with their views.)

    Pragmatism has no place in this Weltanschauung so we must expect to be told that the entire country must suffer economically to achieve the green standards to which the elite, like BBC/Guardian/Chris Huhne/Ed Davey would hold us.

    If these green policies damage the economy and the poorest then that makes good copy for future programs, and they can blame the government or the energy companies.

    • Bazman
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

      Where do benefist and employment right wing poster boy deniers such as Duncan-Smith fit into your and the like of you real world view. He supports cuts on the poor, young and disabled despite all the facts? (personal attacks removed)Ram it.

      Reply I seem to remember increases in benefit levels under this government well ahead of pay rises. Social Security spending has gone up whilst unemployment has fallen.

    • Rtd Colonel
      Posted November 8, 2013 at 7:34 am | Permalink

      Oh but they do have a word for left leaning ‘finktanks’ and ‘experts’ such as former Blair advisors – it’s independent! Go figure

  15. Atlas
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Nick Clegg’s comments, reported in today’s Daily Telegraph, describing those that don’t agree with his take on the Climate as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ – a choice of adjective more associated with the Holocaust – does little to inform. Rather it confirms the religious-like nature of the debate in his circles.

    I wonder if those who thought the cost and effort in erecting Stonehenge was a waste of money (as the Sun would rise anyway on the following day without having to make offerings to it there) were so pilloried? After all, building Stonehenge meant many ‘green’ jobs, didn’t it?

    • A different Simon
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

      What else would you expect from a self professed Britain hater like Mr Clegg ?

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

      If there is no real evidence for catastrophic, run away global warming then I deny that their is evidence.

      What do the later day soothsayers like Clegg do? Well they keep repeating their daft religion, because they have a devout congregation and they would look rather stupid if they now accepted the real science and the genuine evidence.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 9, 2013 at 1:00 am | Permalink

        So you deny the IPCC report which contained evidence that global warming was causing problems throughout the world.

        • Edward 2
          Posted November 9, 2013 at 10:10 am | Permalink

          You really feel change of average global temperature of less than one degree in over one one hundred years is catastrophic?
          I thought the word catastrophic had been quietly dropped since 2000.

    • Mark B
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

      I for one do NOT deny there is, or has ever been ‘climate change.’ I just do not think it is man made or to do with a trace gas. I also think that there is little we can do.

      People who resort to name calling and not challenging the counter arguments just might as well raise a white flag, admit they have lost and remain respectfully silent on the issue.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 9, 2013 at 1:02 am | Permalink

        Mark B given that you’ve ignored all the scientific evidence and have failed to raise any counter arguments by your logic you have already lost.

        • Edward 2
          Posted November 9, 2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink

          And you uni continue to ignore the actual results on comparison to the predictions made.
          PS its not all scientists either.

  16. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    The BBC is a fantastic foundation both local , radio and its’ world service. The excellent work which it does is irreplaceable.
    We as a Country need to cut our emissions despite other country’s achievements or the lack of them . Keep it up the beeb.

    • Bob
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

      Keep it up the beeb.

      What? you mean keep deceiving the Licence tax payer to promote a political agenda?

      • margaret brandreth-j
        Posted November 7, 2013 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

        No deception, just following a well considered and evidenced conviction which many do not like.

      • Arschloch
        Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

        I have to admit that I prefer to listen to the BBC World Service. You are more likely to get an expert analysis here than on R4, because they interview journalists from their foreign language services rather than rely on input from one of BBCs international experts on everything like John Simpson.

        I was also surprised to hear R5l do a piece the other morning about foreigners exploiting the NHS and keep using the very un PC term of “Lagos shuttle” While on Tuesday morning Mr Humphries interrogated the lawyer of the failed asylum seeker, for whom we will be paying for his flying lessons. However he failed to land the killer punch by asking him, why once he has qualified as a pilot and presumably go and get a job, the lad is planning to head off to university? The BBC seems to be following an almost “Daily Mail” agenda!

      • Rtd Colonel
        Posted November 8, 2013 at 7:36 am | Permalink

        In clear breach of it’s charter to be balanced – dream on sockpuppet

    • A different Simon
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      Margaret ,

      Why do we need to cut our emissions ?

      Why do we need to offshore everything so other countries increase their emissions ?

      What is so excellent about brainwashing a nation especially the young ?

      Take away Sports Report , BBC4 TV , and Radio 3 and there ain’t much left to be proud of .

    • John Benton
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      An excellent way to cut your emissions would be to disconnect property from the National Grid and rely only on your own sources of renewables.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

      I may have misjudged you Margaret.

      I have copies of every single e-mail I have ever sent to BBC local radio running into many hundreds. Those that criticise the Tories are used far more frequently than those criticising Labour or the liberal left. Is that the kind of ‘impartiality’ you want the BBC to keep up?

      The only unashamedly and consequently hugely popular anti-PC show on BBC local radio, was recently reduced from three hours to just two (Please go to Richard Spendlove’s website to sign the petition to get it put back to three hours again).

      BBC lefties have wrecked what should be an asset to the community. It’s a difficult task to keep challenging them all the time, but that’s the price we must pay in order to stop them.

      Tad

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

      “We as a Country need to cut our emissions despite other countries’ achievements or the lack of them.”

      Why exactly? Even if we did and the bogus science actually proved to be right (against all the evidence). Then without coordinated world action (which clearly will not happen) it would have no benefit anyway.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

        Anyway wind and PV do not really work, even in CO2 terms.

        • lifelogic
          Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

          Nor does shipping timber to burn here from the US!

    • Mark B
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

      Yes Margaret, I am sure it is. And as it is such a ‘fantastic foundation’ it would have no objection to having the law repealed requiring people to first purchase a TV Licence,

    • Bryan
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

      How many times does this have to be said before the message gets home?

      If the UK were to cease all emissions at midnight tonight then China’s annual increase in emissions will have wiped out ‘our’ savings within one year.

      Meanwhile our industry suffers, our poorer are in fuel poverty, and China grows economically stronger, not giving a fig about climate change.

      Green means naive also!

    • Tad Davison
      Posted November 7, 2013 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

      I also note that the BBC is falling over itself to give the convicted Vicky Pryce all the air time it can at our expense. She was on local radio last week, and BBC1’s Question Time this.

      So what is she, and why is she so important?

      She’s a left-wing liberal ‘economist’ with her own agenda that was sent to prison (etc ed). There are many other eminently qualified people who deserve the air time, who haven’t been banged up, so why the favouritism?

      (words deleted ed)

      I’d say it stinks to high heaven, and we’re paying for it through our compulsory licence fee!

      Tad Davison

      Cambridge

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted November 8, 2013 at 7:54 am | Permalink

      You support high energy prices then ?

  17. Mark
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    The annual BP Review of World Energy has data going back to 1965 on CO2 emissions.

    http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013/review-by-energy-type/primary-energy/energy-and-the-environment.html

    It shows that no country in the world has done more to reduce emissions than the UK since then – cutting our share of global output from 6% to just 1.5%. Our emissions peaked at 722MtCO2 in 1970, and even despite an uptick in coal burn in 2012 to provide backup to wind power, were at 530MtCO2. China now accounts for 27% of the global total, and on present trends will have a higher per capita level of emissions than the UK within a couple of years: it increased its emissions by 548MtCO2 in 2012 over 2011 – more than the total UK output.

    In the mean time, the Lords have voted to ban the use of cheap coal to provide baseload power, which will necessarily driving up future energy bills in order to pay for more expensive sources of power and finance the investment in even more expensive offshore windmills, etc. Perhaps it will make the embarrassment of paying the French three times as much as the Chinese did for 3.2GW of EPR nuclear capacity less obvious.

    Today I note the EU is back with ideas on how to interfere in energy markets.

    The European Union presented a set of recommendations for governments to improve their state-aid mechanisms in energy markets, including support programs for renewable energy.

    The European Commission, the 28-nation bloc’s regulatory arm, aims to give for member states guidance on public intervention in the electricity market as end-user prices rise.

    As the renewables sector and technologies mature and costs decline, investment decisions should be driven by the market and not by guaranteed price levels determined by the government, the commission said.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-05/eu-set-to-recommend-overhaul-of-state-support-in-energy-markets.html

    That is of course precisely the opposite of the current Energy Bill’s CFD price guarantees and the deal for Hinkley C. Perhaps that is as good a reason as any to call off the whole bill and think again?

    • stred
      Posted November 8, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

      It apppears that the Germans are providing an excuse for a reversal of UK policy, which is leading to energy prices as high as theirs. But will our politicians realise that we need to copy their latest proposals and avoid their mistakes?

  18. John Benton
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    As a long time Tory voter I(disagree with ed) people been allowed to remain on the Energy and Climate Change Committee when they have major conflicts of interest in renewables?

    I’m afraid I’ve reached the stage where I just couldn’t stomach voting conservative again.

    Reply Under the rules of the House an individual cannot use a Committee to further their business interests, and have to avoid conflicts. IF they have a potential conflict then they must declare the position and not seek to influence matters for their interest. Any MP or peer who breaks these rules can be investigated and if necessary disciplined.

  19. Bazman
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    I heard to interview in my quite CO2 emitting car. I think he meant more in terms of scale. Did not stop me from flooring the pedal past that pensioner dawdling along after coming out of the village.

  20. Kevin Marshall
    Posted November 7, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    More up to date figures will show that in the USA CO2 emissions are falling. Further they are falling at a faster rate than in Britain. In the USA this is due switching to low-cost shale gas, to the net benefit of the American economy. In Britain reductions are through switching to renewables at a net cost to the British economy in general and poorer consumers in particular.
    China’s CO2 emissions have probably grown from 5 to 15 times those of the UK, and those in the US from 10 to 13 times those of the UK.
    In Germany and Japan CO2 emissions are set to rise as they abandon coal. In Germany’s case they are also abandoning renewables and switching back to coal.
    This all means that no matter how “virtuous” the UK tries to be in “saving the planet”, it will make not one iota of difference to the global emissions situation.

  21. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted November 10, 2013 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    The following item appeared on bbc.co.uk / News Scotland on 16 September 2013:
    Pentland Firth tidal turbine project given consent.

    Work is to begin on the largest tidal turbine energy project in Europe after the Scottish government approved it.

    MayGen is to install the tidal array in stages in the Pentland Firth, between Orkney and the Scottish mainland. MayGen is a joint venture between Morgan Stanley and tidal technology provider Atlantis Resources Corporation.

    It will be the first commercial deployment of tidal turbines in Scottish waters:
    – A demonstration project to generate 9MW
    – Stage 1: 86MW to provide enough power for 42,000 homes (40% of homes in the Highlands)
    – Stage 2: Up to 400 submerged turbines, generating some 398MW

    The Carbon Trust has estimated that wave and tidal resources could provide 20% of the UK’s electricity if fully developed [Better together!!]

    So to respond to your prompt for energy policies, let’s get the cash flow right, with cheaper and easy to produce energy resources tapped first:
    (1) Imported gas
    (2) Fracking – lots of it
    (3) Clean coal
    (4) Tidal power
    (5) Nuclear

    And let’s not forget zero world population growth. Do we really need more wind farms?

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page