North Sea oil and gas transformed the economic fortunes of the UK from the grim days of the 1970s and underpinned our re-emergence as a world power. The boom ensured that we had abundant energy and could keep warm cheaply. This is a fundamental reason why our living standards are so relatively high today. Now the Cleggeron government is severely limiting further exploration (and has needlessly restricted the number of exploration licences)because – no doubt partly as a result largely of a deluge of greenie PR by the BBC – Greenpeace and others now dictate energy policy. This means that more emphasis is now placed on marine wildlife than human welfare, and that the days of cheap energy are well and truly over. The BBC, of course, report the whole disgraceful charade with the emphasis on the Greenpeace perspective; the picture of their pathetic publicity stunt has been carefully chosen so that the greenie concerns are foremost. And note how they give credence to the idea that the economy can be “de-carbonised”. Which planet do they live on?
ECONOMIC SUICIDE…
Bookmark the permalink.
I’s like them to go live on Venus, now that really does suffer from the greenhouse effect.
I was going to suggest that the Former UK will soon be ripe for invasion and occupation by another (any?) power, but then I paused and thought “who the hell would want it, anyway?”. So I stopped worrying, andf had a gin and tonic. And some salty, crunchy things, and a snooze…
Then I woke up in my French heaven and thought “what the hell”.
“J’Accuse…Greenpeace”
(and, I would add: BBC-Greenpeace.)
http://blog.godfreybloommep.co.uk/blog/48-jaccuse-greenpeace–
Brilliant headline for an article !
But who would publish it ?
How does one get to face Richard Black down ?
Last time he was “challenged ” on Newswatch, woos Ray Snoddy let him get away with blue murder
Greenpeace is more interested in dragging the industrial world back down to subsistence farming than anything else. They, too, view humans (except themselves, naturally) as a parasitic infestation on a beautiful planet. As we witnessed back when the BBC used the Greenpeace mouthpiece as a respected source on the oil industry economics, they have about as much credibility on the issue as the Pope does on whether or not Satan exists.
From now on, I say we call them “Watermelonpeace” instead.
I find I cannnot click through for fear of the overwhelming bile and hatred of the BBC that it will create. I know what awaits me on the other side of the click. Sorry. I know I am weak.
Same day, different headline: “Shetland drilling could trigger spill worse than BP’s… Chevron has admitted its new deepwater drilling campaign off the Shetland Islands could cause an oil spill worse than BP’s accident in the Gulf of Mexico.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8088216/Shetland-drilling-could-trigger-spill-worse-than-BPs.html
More nonsense from the BBC-Telegraph and the BBC-Chevron.
Risk Vs reward?
Of course there is risk in all things, its the price of affluence and the price we need to pay for the NHS/welfare state/education/defence.
The key is to define and then minimize the risk and maximise the reward, its what industrial progress is all about and while the Luddites would have you believe that third world subsistance life is somehow a wothwhile aim, there is no subsitute for fossil fuels that provides the same basis for our society.
The BBC takes ONE side and one perspective and one opinion and then flogs them to death, all the things the ecomentalists take for granted were provided by fossil fuels and yet the BBC never reflects the positive effects of fossil fuels.
Balance?
As for the Telegraph, what is your point? You know as well as I do the poisonous influence of the SEJ/NUJ on the MSM, the death grip of misinformation and partisan propaganda choking the life from the MSM.
The MSM has its beeboid style infiltrators more interested in propaganda dissemination than journalism, the BBC is run and directed by propagandists with a determination to lie and cheat and deceive in order to peddle their poisonous political ideology.
Oil and Gas based industrial progress OR ecofascist idealism? The former brings wealth and prosperity to the many while the latter brings wealth and power to the few and poverty and misery to the many.
If you want to live in a Marxist cesspit then support the watermellons.
“note how they give credence to the idea that the economy can be ‘de-carbonised'”. Who is “they”? The BBC? Or the government?
And why do you say “the economy” when the actual quote was about de-carbonising “the energy system”?
Sounds a little bit slippery, not quite honest. But never mind, hopefully no one will notice. 🙂
Yee god your right a no one did notice ! 😀
“de-carbonised”
I would like to ‘de carbonise’ the ecofascisti and all their political friends.
The energy system IS the economy, the two are one. You cannot have a ‘de carbonised’ economy and energy system that delivers cheap reliable energy and industrial products.
The phrase ‘de carbonisation’ is one of the most ridiculous aspects of the watermellon/carpet bagger/ecofascist axis. Cheap relaible fossil fuels, the search and exploitationof those fuels creating the wealth to discover CHEAPER alternatives is the only way to a prosperous economy.
fermented lentils good as natural gas I think not…lets bring back horses and sweeps etc….sorry greenies times they have changed…get a job get a life,but best of all let me live my own the way I want but dont try to change my way of life…go and live in a home made tent etc…..You can see why the BeeB and greenies are pals very close cousins
HARDTALK WITH STEPHEN SACKUR INTERVIEWS TONY JUNIPER.
This Mr Juniper now adviser to the greenie nutter the Prince of Wales formerly from Greenpiss gets the BBC ecofascist easy ride consisting of ‘is the PoW a two faced hypocrite?’ yeah do bears sh*t in the woods!
Onward from that Juniper gets to spout his meaningless eco mumbo jumbo without challenge from Sackur who manages to quote from guess who? oooh yes from the original fruitcake supremo Monbiot, no sceptical quotes or challenges whatsover from Sackur who sucks up all the CAGW nonsense as gospel.
You may remember Juniper for presiding over a greenpiss that knowingly lied about the effects of global warming in order to frighten people into believing the fraud and lied about lying and tried to cover up those lies on lies.
Any word from Sackur on that? Er….er..nope. So Juniper gets to claim credit for healing the ozone hole even though we now know his agitation about CFCs merely exchanged one gas for another and left the third world to manufacture them without pause and it now appears the hole was in fact natural with natural causes plus he gets to claim credit for saving the rain forrests when his gang did so much to help multinationals rip down millions of trees in the quest for biofuels.
So many things missing from Sackurs questioning as he accepts all of Junipers points including that the earth is still warming and that warming is accelerating >:o I pull that face because we know the earth is in fact cooling and excluding the falsified temperature record(hello NIWA-GISS) the planet has barely warmed over the last century and now we stand on the precipice of cooling over decades.
So there we have a fraud and a liar and cheat interviewing another liar and fraud and cheat in what amounted to a mutual mastubation.
I wonder where we’d be without carbon? We just wouldn’t be…