The greenies at the BBC hate coal as a central tenet of their religion. Despite the fact that it was the bedrock of the industrial revolution, despite the fact that it brought – and continues to bring – heat and light and comfort to billions round the world, it’s a nasty, noxious substance, because when it burns, it emits that “poison”, CO2. The leader of those trying to stop its use, and force us back to fuel poverty, is, of course, the EU. Aided and abetted by fanatical green lobbyists such as Greenpeace, they have a declared suicidal agenda of shutting down as many coal mines and coal-fired power stations as possible, even though this will seriously harm the economies of almost every member country. Today, they have announced in true, jack-booted EU Commission style that they are stopping subsidies to “uneconomic” coal mines, forcing 100,000 miners out of work, and further precipitating the decline of European competitiveness.
The BBC have reported the story here. But guess what’s missing from their finely-honed propaganda? There’s not a mention of the real story, that it’s the green fanatics inside and outside the Commission that have forced the loss of 100,00 jobs. To the BBC, it’s been sanitised so that the closures are necessary only because the mines are “uneconomic” and “loss-making”. Astonishing, even by BBC standards.
And, of course , windfarms are not “uneconomic “.
Oddly the BBC were less understanding about Mrs Thatcher closing ‘uneconomic’ industries in the 1980s. Then the BBC fought the closures tooth and nail; why the difference? And I was also going to post what Grant said about Wind Farms as well, what’s the state subsidy per unit of electricity produced by these inefficient monsters?
For the BBC, whatever the EU does is to be welcomed .
Lets face it, we are no longer in control of our own destinies. This corrupt mega-quango known as the EU has no interest in the people, only a concern for its own self-perpetuation, bugger the costs to humanity. Marxist socialism is here, alive and well. We WILL do as our masters dictate, and like it. Even if it means auto-destruction, the mega-state will win in the end, and the BBC are the forelock-tugging toadies who will facilitate the spread of the message to the masses. We have no choice.
With blacklists of “deniers” and special incarceration facilities for non-believers, and a Europe-wide political police force ready to drag the sceptics away, what possible chance do we have?
George Orwell was uncannily accurate in his predictions.
What Hitler failed to achieve by force, the EU has stealthily managed to accomplish. Our fallen in the two world wars must be uneasy in their graves (wherever they may be…)
What a calamitous heritage
” The EU has stealthily managed to accomplish”, only with the help of our very own treacherous politicians. Without this fifth column we would not have this problem at all.
A bit overstated, but could well be a future that awaits us.
Is this a miss?
I’m opposed to all subsidies, windmills or mines. That such subsidies are being removed is not a problem in itself. The only problem is that this occurs against a background of vast subsidies going into alternative energy (and nuclear).
However this is not an editorial contrasting the pros and cons of subsidies. It is a report that subsidies will be used to ameliorate the social effects of closing mines rather than keeping the mines open. The fact that the obligatory “AGW” quote is missing is a point to be applauded not complained about.
The headline and first paragraph don’t give the impression this is a story about subsidies (which would be better described as bribes).
Coal is the 2nd cheapest form of energy according to the US DoE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levelized_energy_cost.jpg
The only “loss-making” involved is due to the huge subsidies for other forms of energy. The BBC should be using an accurate headline such as “loss of EU subsidies force coal mine closures”, certainly not “EU calls time on loss-making coal mines”. The “calls time” makes it sound as if coal is a bygone product that can’t compete economically with cheaper alternatives. Offshore wind costs 4 times as much!
I have to ask why, if coal is essential to our economy, it needs subsidies in the first place? Surely such a vital concern will fetch an economically viable price?
Subsidized foreign imports?
Food’s pretty essential but farming receives subsidies.
The story states that “most subsidies go to mines in Germany’s Ruhr region, north-west Spain and Romania’s Jiu Valley” ie it might actually save the UK taxpayer some money (well, in reality it won’t because the money will be spent elsewhere). As RD notes, if coal is vital, subsidies should not be necessay and AFAIAA subsidies are not paid to the (private) UK coal industry nor the Polish industry. The other point, made by Grant, is germane to the issue. Why subsidise something (ie windfarms) that will not only never be economic but, worse, will never be able to generate sufficient electricity to be more than a marginal input to the grid. As to nuclear: I support subsidies to it on two grounds: 1. nuclear actually works and 2. nuclear provides genuine security of supply (ie the very opposite of windpower). However, if the BBC-sponsored return of this country to the Stone Age actually occurs, any remaining nuclear power stations will not require subsidies but, on the contrary, will be enormous generators, not only of power but, profits.
I would have thought it is obvious that nuclear is the only future. Do the BBC ever comment about France’s reliance on nuclear ?
So, in the coming years, when the UK is no longer self-sufficient in food or power , foreign powers will have us over a barrel. What a bloody mess.
Any chance of a new general comments board please?
This topic intro brings me neatly onto a subject that the beeb is schitzo about. I.E. Overpopulation, this subject is talked about sensibly in programs except the news. In the news it would never be recognised that our over use of coal, gas, petrol, etc would be a lot lower if there were a lot less of us humans. Overpopulation caused by ignorance and religions, usually both, would frighten the horses so must not be mentioned.
For BBC, EU-subsidised ‘Greenies’ trump working class.
Thank Gaia for Margaret Thatcher, then. Why, if the female policitican the BBC hates the most in all of history hadn’t shut down the mines back in the day, it would be all the more difficult to transform society into the green dream.
I wonder if an astute BBC analyst would ever have such an historical perspective.
BBC ‘analysts’ dont have historical perspectives, they have political agendas.
Ian Tomlinson aka St Jean Charles de Menezes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274
Richard Black links sceptics with white supremacists. Charming.
It’s a bit rich for someone who makes his living condemning people who disagree with his beliefs on a scientific basis to be scolding others for creating a “climate of abuse”. Having said that, remove the “Jews” from that one comment he highlights, and I pretty much agree with the sentiment.
Further down, a comment on the thread contends that the “global warming scam has always borne the stench of the same old Jewish liars, thieves, swindlers and murderers”.
The BBC and defenders of the indefensible are usually the first ones to scold people for using a tiny fringe element to tar an entire group of people. Alinsky Rules for me, but not for thee.
One has to admire the fact that he obviously wishes he had his colleagues’ airy reticence to reply, but just can’t resist.
And when he does, the hole he is already in just gets deeper.
His blog does seem to have limited value in mostly being an arena for mostly professional, adversarial contrarians to knock spots off each other, but a few do have and make decent points so I still drop by.
However when the author gets on his high, one-sided horse on personal integrity and BBC agenda, it simply becomes tragi-comic.
As a pathetic ‘guilt by zero association’ attempt to tar a questioning mindset in the manner he has, he only succeeds in showing him, his employer and their groupies as the raging, dangerous hypocrites that they are.
To retain and/or regain any credibility in this arena, the BBC should allow him to join whichever activist group that will have him (possibly less thrilled at having to pay and more so at losing a national broadcast PRasNews mouthpiece), and try and employ a qualified, objective, science reporter. One who might manage an obit with the same dignity as the very blogs Mr. Black so passionately seems to loathe beyond the bounds of reason.
BBC staff don’t have to worry about fuel poverty or any kind of poverty.
They are well paid and have a superb pension scheme.
The corporation is divorced form the everyday realities of life and it shows in everything it does, especially its news.
Let’s not forget the watermelon element in all this. Even Richard Black himself admits to an extra, non-environmental reason behind his and the BBC’s desire for a low-carbon economy:
That does not mean we need soft consensual journalism – because as many nations attempt to make the leap to low-carbon economies the policy cauldron contains a rich mix of controversial ingredients: how to save rainforests (the most efficient way of protecting the climate), biofuels, equity between rich and poor, the deal to tie in big developing nations, the response of the United States, how to force clean technology on to the market, fair eco-taxation, how to finance adaptation, carbon pricing, the most economic ways of saving emissions, political leadership, public ambivalence, population, consumption, off-setting, nuclear and many more…
What does the class struggle have to do with energy policy? Nothing, unless one is a closet Marxist.
“That does not mean we need soft consensual journalism ”
I think this is Richard Black’s way of saying he is against impartiality.
‘We do not need …’. Another way of looking at it is he is saying ‘we dont need democracy’ either.
Save the planet, kill democracy. This is the mentality of these fanatical, ego-driven ‘bots.
How soon before the BBC approved fanatics are picketing Thomas the Tank engine days on the preserved railways shouting “unclean unclean! ” and encouraging small children to turn him ,and Percy, Toby and the rest, into hate figures. Indoctrinate the children and the rest is easy.