The Environment Agency – which, from its support of windfarms should actually be known as the Environment-wrecking agency – has a new fantasy. It has spent shedloads of our money producing a survey that claims our energy needs could be met by building 26,000 water turbines on rivers round the country. Most taxpayers when faced with such codswallop would want to know how much damage that building schemes on this scale would do to the environment, how much it would all cost, how much such lunacy would put on the price of electricity bills and how practical it was in meeting the country’s energy needs. But the intrepid boys and girls on the Today programme – greenie fanatics all – had only one concern when they covered the report his morning: whether the turbines can be built without affecting…fish. I kid you not. Meanwhile, real journalists, like Christopher Booker, are dealing with the real issues that are raised by this disastrous focus on green energy schemes; Britain is facing major power blackouts unless we abandon such idiocy.
FISHY….
Bookmark the permalink.
Robin, you’re so heartless! Don’t you care about the poor fishy-wishies?
The main role of EA is the enforcement of EU Directives and, as such, it has enormous power.
A few years ago, I thought that I had received ministerial support from DEFRA for a new venture, but a business acquaintance was horrified by my naivety for thinking that this was in any way relevant.
His comment was that DEFRA could talk the talk but the real power was vested in the EA, who are self financing and did not see themselves as being subordinate to Westminster. At the time, I was shocked, but now I understand how it all works.
The EA has enormous revenue earning powers, through the fees it charges to its “customers”, but is rarely responsible for anything, e.g. it has no responsibility when flood defences fail etc.
As result, it can pontificate on almost any daft subject….
At a wedding yesterday. Sat next to an investment banker. She told me how concerned she was about man-made climate change. Refused to even discuss (because she would get in-polite at the wedding dinner) the possibility that the science was not settled. Adamant that *the* solution to the UK carbon problem was to use tidal energy. I tried to suggest that there was no where near enough energy, based on elementary physics computations. Failed. She kept spouting facts she heard on the BBC. Sadly, her green energy fund is probably going to be a great success at making money; but not at making energy. The BBC is not doing us a great service here.
Yes Today is part of the propaganda transmission belt for warmism and related lunacies but it’s not all the BBC’s fault. As Booker implies, whichever party is in power after the election, the loonies will rule. Funnily enough I can sort-of forgive – not that I would vote for – Labour and the LibDems spouting any old nonsense that might garner a few votes since, for the most part, their policies were self-serving crapola to start with. I cannot forgive the Conservatives since they know exactly that what they have embraced – and, more to the point, what they have discarded – since 2005. Worse, if the polls are to be believed, the Conservatives have been rumbled. At least Labour’s con-man – Blair – was successful in his tricks and got out before the excreta dropped into the airconditioning. OTOH, Cameron is a failure – even as a con-man. For someone whose only “job” outside politics was in PR that takes some doing.
Lowering the poulation would be the most sensible way of helping the envirnment. This would eliminate the need for all this extra energy housing, food water etc. Of course there are finacial, and now we learn political benefits in allowing the population rise predicted soon to reach 70 million
@Umbungo. You are quite right. It’s not all the BBC’s fault. There are many forces at work here.
I just love this website and have it on my toolbar –
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Go down to Generation by Fuel Type Table and the graph below it. Have a look at the contribution of wind to the generation of UK electricity. 0.0%! OK it’s a high pressure period but it’s usually only about 1.1%.
Whatever it is you have to have backup.
I invested in a generator about 18 months ago following Richard North’s advice. I can run computers and central heating off it. It’s come in handy twice already!
Well, technically, aren’t fish part of the environment? So doesn’t concern for their well-being fall under the “damage to the environment’ category the BBC is supposed to be asking about? A small point, I know.
The concrete law of unintended consequences has always been around to trap the stupid/credulous imbecile who fails to think things through.
History is littered with examples of stupid people making stupid choices for the wrong reasons and then ignoring any advice to the contrary.
Is the EA/EU/DEFRA run by stupid people(stupid is as stupid does!)? The Uk has several suitable sites for small hydro generators and nearly all of them would be damaged by any from blocking restrictions.
The only way to power a first world nation is to provide cheap electricity by way of big coal and nuclear plants untill fusion is ready to take over, no amount of childish ideologically driven stupid ideas of micro generation will do this.
We seem to be mired in the tyranny of the stupid minority who now control our national destiny, they labour under the illusion that by thinking up silly schemes that wouldnt be out of place in a 70s childrens cartoon their fantasies can become real.
We have a dangerous combination of stupid people with lots of money,control of the mass media and political power. We are in effect being led to our doom by idiots.
When are we going to see a massive support FOR wind tubines / water power / wave power programme? Because we should.
Not on the basis of so called and largely bogus environmental reasons.
But on the basis of needing to support the future independence of the great British nation.
Relying mostly on islamofascist and totalitarian states for future oil, gas, coal and uranium.
The only good argument for alternative energy and renewables is this, but it should be decisive.
But everyone seems so keen on supporting a tree hugger (the BBC) or opposing a tree hugger (here) that they miss the blindingly obvious.
Go make your quick buck and to hell with the future.
By our grandchildren’s generation the UK will entirely be in the hands of those that wish us harm and its the actions now that are going to do it.
I suppose I should thank God that I probably won’t have the misfortune to personally see those days come to pass.
Nuclear and coal electricity generation, its safe and reliable giving the UK the best mix of cheap energy into the next century.
Meanwhile back at the ranch the funding of real science and engineering should be ramped up exploring fusion and hydrogen fuels.
Countless billions have been squandered on the ridiculous attempt to back up a socio political narrative with trash science, what we need is more top class engineers,scientists and commercial exploiters of the real science and engineering model.
Two things matter in the real world, is it reliable and is it cheap?
The arguments against nuclear are political in nature, the political elements behind the oppostion to nuclear use agitprop techniques, in essence lies and falsehoods to create fear and uncertainty.
We are sitting on enough coal and we have the infrastructure to meet our nuclear needs into the 22nd century, what we lack is the will and sense to use our natural resources with intelligence and common sense.
“Senior scientists at the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WITG) has rejected the Global Warming Theory and told that the Himalayas are quite safer zone on earth, where Global Warming has no role in controlling the conditions.”
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/northindia/Global-Warming-has-no-impact-on-Himalayas-claims-Wadia-Director/Article1-515763.aspx
Why has Black or Harrabin not picked up this one? After all they seem to get thier information by trawling through little known papers and periodicals (just like the IPCC).
Interesting article about violent crime having gone UP under Liebour. Figues from HoC library.
So tomorrow expect the BBC (Sheena Easton) to spin the Labour line that this is a Tory lie, violent crime has fallen blah blah blah.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html
OT a bit Martin – but I have seen how the “statistics” work and this chap is spot on.
“David Green, criminologist and director of Civitas, said the Government had a reputation for “scheming and manipulation”, adding: “I think the Government knew perfectly well in 2002/03 that it would be very helpful to say ‘sorry we cannot go back beyond this date’ because they did not want a consistent historical series.”
There have been other changes too. The Labour parties pet “crimes” e.g. “hate crimes” are always said to be “under- reported” on no evidence whatsoever so these are arbitarily increased by 10 or 15% on nothing more than a whim. I would never trust any crime figures put out by the Home Office as most of the methods for collecting data have been messed about so much it is impossible to ever get to the truth. (A bit like CRU proxy data).
Heres a video linked from James Delingpole from the Telegraph
“The Fraud of Free Energy”
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2009/02/22/lpactv-feature-fraud-free-
Back in the world of BBC bias, Radio 5 ignores the 44% rise in violent crime, the BBC’s prince of mince (Niki Campbell) talks to Alan Johnson and is only interested in talking about dogs (I don’t think he meant the ugly bitch he works with either) to Johnson oh and what a shock the BBC managed to pick up on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme and have a go at Cameron for being a toff and his wife for possibly voting Labour.
Funny they didn’t see Gilligans programme last week.
Then the BBC give us a sob story about the Ruskies that topped themselves in Glasgow (well who wouldn’t?
Of course a totally one sided debate with some wet woman from some asylum seekers group, but the BBC failed to spot the real issue.
These Ruskies were GIVEN asylum in Canada (wow I wish I could get it there) but that wasn’t good enough, so they decided to do asylum shopping and came here. They were not going to be sent back to Russia but Canada. This has been totally ignored by the leftist BBC.
Piss off you drug taking BBC tools.
Scrappy Doo says: Lowering the poulation would be the most sensible way of helping the envirnment.
Scrappy, are you volunteering to be first?
BBC ignoring the Lord Paul stuff. I never even knew he was under investigation.