The big oil companies, once the greenies’ villains of the peace, are now in bed with them. They are the cats that truly have the cream, because on top of their massive oil and gas reserves – which of course the world still needs – they are now also benefiting massively from the lunatic government subsidies for building wind farms and other so-called renewables. Their grasping greed is part of the sinister conspiracy that, as Ofgem pointed out yesterday, will lead to energy bills soaring to £5,000 a year by 2020 and regular power cuts well before then. So when Dr Anthony Hayward, the BP boss, comes down from his subsidy-fuelled castle to give – as fawning Evan Davis put it this morning on Today “a rare interview” – how is he treated? With sickening deference. Our chain-wearing Evan’s first question was, he obviously thought, quite a toughie (and designed to be a sop to all those anti-warming ‘deniers’ he clearly sneers at); whether the great doctor actually believed in ‘climate change’, despite all the recent controversy. The answer was “yes”, so naturally, this was treated as the gospel truth, and the rest of the exchange followed entirely predictable lines. It revealed nothing other than that BP is fat, complacent, and chillingly opportunistic.
What Davis should have asked the good doctor is how much he and his company stands to make from government subsidies in the massive ‘renewables’ scam. That is precisely the qestion that the BBC will never ask.
” rare interview ” suggests he has something to hide !
A point frequently overlooked, is that no sensible oil company is going to voluntarily subject itself to absurdly onerous taxation regimes and operating constraints, when it can go elsewhere in the world , and partner saner goverments. Hence the total lack of interest in anything more than token investment in the north sea.
Every aspect of the economy – industry, agriculture, and transport would have been hit by one of the cleverest scams in all history. No wonder all governments, particularly our PM Brown (a Tax and Spend politician) , was so keen on AGW. Then there is the Futures trading market on energy, CO2, carbon, and a stock exchange to trade specifically on these. All Big business – oil and gas interests, banks, merchant banks, and financial houses, all support the AGW scam. As for Oil and gas interests, they would continue to make their usual profits from the sale of energy, which is fair, but under the AGW scam, they would also be the main agents in the trade of CO2, and the collection of government/EU levies on energy usage– pure profit for both, with no additional outlay.
This scam was above all political and has political objectives, i.e., control on a global basis, a global Lisbon treaty. No wonder our Global this and global that PM Brown was supporting it. In such an economic climate, big business always profits, driving the small industries into the ground. No wonder it has the support of Big Business, Big Money and Big Oil.
Sooner or later, politicians have to be brought to book on this scam to defraud the public financially and politically.
I have been trying to find out how much extra we are paying in our electricity and gas bills, but with no luck so far – just getting the run around. It seems to be a state secret.
Of course BP is on the AGW bandwagon – it’s very profitable! Also BP is not an “oil” company as such it’s an “energy” company. It’ll make money from whatever’s going at the time. It’s been oil for the last 100 years (and that’s not going to change for the foreseeable future) and you can now add to that real money from taxpayers world-wide courtesy of the politicos. BP is in the business of business. Why shouldn’t it profit from the idiots in power (and in opposition). Why should BP walk away from billions?
As this post and comment thread indicate the BBC refuses to ask the pertinent questions. All Evan is concerned about is that BP is on-side. He had no need to haul on the good doctor to respond. Anyone with half a brain (which apparently excludes the Today team) could have told him that BP is onside – together with every energy company you can name.
I wonder how many Labour Mps will be working for BP when they get booted out this year?
What do you mean by ‘chain wearing Evan’? This site is getting more and more exclusive — only for the conoscenti who can persist with the awkward signing-in nonsense.
I think it means he’s a homo.
As a metter of fact, I once found myself standing behind the aforementioned chain wearer in Tower Records, Piccadilly Circus.
He was dressed head to foot in leather gear and chains. I am not kidding.
Maybe that’s the reference.
One of my greater frustrations with the BBC’s market rate talents’ unthinking cheerleading for any demand for money for ‘climate change’ is that it is almost never accompanied by any challenges, for any advocates, to substantiate where, once gouged, it is going to and with what GHG-reducing effect.
Mainly, one suspects, that other than being used as a very vague stick to beat out more taxes, any actual reduction in carbon might be rather hard for any favoured sons or daughters they enjoy mixing with actually justifying.
Heads up. Just seen Sheena on News 24 attacking the Tories over the violent crime statistics. Sheena clearly briefed by Downing Street to go into full attack mode.
Sheena sneered at Chris Grayling for misleading people over violent crime. Oh dear Sheena, how quick of YOU to forget your own screw up when you went around spouting crime figures given to you by Downing street only to have to apologize the following day as McFailure was told NOT to use those figures.
People in glass houses shouldn’t ………
Here’s a fascinating forum about Climategate which took place at MIT last December. Five MIT professors of various disciplines gave opening remarks, and then answered questions from the audience. The panel is totally stacked in favor of Warmism.
The panel:
Kerry Emanuel: Evangelical Warmist, non-Scientist
Judith Layzer: Warmist, Political Scientist
Stephen Ansolabehere: Warmist, Political Scientist
Ronald Prinn: Warmist Convert, Scientist
Richard Lindzen: Non-Believer, Scientist
Note that only Prinn and Lindzen (the one who resembles the ArchB of C) are actually scientists. Lindzen is a geologist, with an expertise in some of the science used in the Warmist debate. Prinn is an IPCC insider, who used to be skeptical but became a believer in the last few years because he thinks there’s enough evidence.
The two political science profs were there because this forum was ostensibly about the debate surrounding Climategate, how it has manifested in public, and the relevant issues. It wasn’t meant to be a debate about whether Warmism is fact or not. Naturally, they come across as approving more open debate about Warmism because of course the only reason people don’t believe in Warmism is because it hasn’t been explained well enough to the public. So they’re concerned about the way the issue is debated in the public forum.
However, Emanuel was there specifically to defend Warmism, and condemn and discredit the “machine” working against Warmism. With his appearance and demeanor, he is straight out of central casting. He’s the only panelist who doesn’t behave in a totally professional manner.
The whole thing is two hours long, which is a lot, but well worth it in the end. It’s fascinating to see Emanuel lay out pretty much exactly the case for Warmism – as well as the case against nefarious forces trying to undermine it – as is preached by the BBC. He’s almost note-for-note with Harriban and Co. When asked a question, he dissembles and throws out red herrings to distract, using the same tactics we’ve seen from Beeboid Warmists. Lindzen’s sober statements and refutations are a breath of fresh air, and should come in handy for those defending themselves against Warmists.