Roger Harrabin is quite the card. Here he is on the BBC this morning warning that “Environmentalists” now fear that the UK government’s draft energy bill to be published on Tuesday will end in a new “dash for gas”.

They want the bill to be guided by the government’s stated wish to almost completely de-carbonise the electricity industry by the 2030s. But there has been no guarantee such a target will be enshrined in the bill.

I’m sure that they do what this – after all their eco-lunacy knows no economic constraints. However my question is why does Harrabin feel the need to virtually cheerlead on behalf of their anxieties? Why do these Green groups matter so much that THEIR concerns come before those of the rest of us who have to cough up increasingly large amounts of money to underwrite the watermelon agenda?

Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to GREENS CONCERNS..

  1. Old Goat says:

    Because they’re all part and parcel of the bigger socialist/marxist agenda which is infiltrating everyone and everything with the common purpose mycelium.

    It is so vociferous, so all-encompassing, I fear the paragons of scientific right and virtue will wilt under the onslaught, and we will seal our own demise.

    They are hell bent on destroying our way of life and the world as we know it – the AGW/Climate nonsense was a bandwagon made in heaven for them. It’s a pity that the unjustified (and invented) alarmism and fear wasn’t seen through by Joe Public much, much earlier – then we may just have stood a chance.

    Not much hope of that now, as the bandwagon is gaining momentum (usually by virtue of those leaping on board who see megabucks for themselves).

    The BBC are merely one of the convenient mouthpieces.


    • Pah says:

      You are quite right.

      The New Scientist, which is getting more and more watermelon by the week was also pushing this line recently.

      More gas will lead to less renewables which wil lead to DOOM DOOM DOOM … Mr Mainwaring.


  2. MD says:

    I read this last night and you can see the contortions and conflicts in the BBC’s position on energy within the text. As a result all that’s presented is an incoherent set of paragraphs, each making a point, but without any linking together. If there was more coherence then the weakness of the ‘greens’ position on energy would be apparent for all to see.

    He mentions the ‘dash for gas’, but avoids directly linking it to shale gas until well down the page. There is no explanation of why we might be dashing for gas. Shale gas is transforming the energy market in the US because of it’s low cost, but there is no mention of that as it might imply it’s a good idea. It is also is a route to cutting CO2 emmissions.

    He mentions that energy bills have been driven higher recently due to gas price increases, but fails to recognise that shale gas in the UK and Europe could add significant amounts of cheap gas into the market. You can’t predict future price rises on the basis of past price rises if the supply situation has radically changed.

    Having read the article I still don’t know if Greenpeace and other green groups are for or against nuclear energy,.

    He mentions that off shore wind is ‘still stubbornly expensive’ and states ‘Investors need some certainty if they are to make commitments on expensive installations’, but there is no recognition of the economics of the energy market. Nowhere is there any comment on how Europe’s energy costs might compare to the US and Asia.

    Altogether it’s a poor summary of what’s going on and unfortunately we have to pay for it


  3. Cassandra King says:

    Of course no counter points or contrary views and opinions are allowed are they? Dissenters and sceptics have nothing to add and no contribution to make even though sceptics now make up the majority.

    A state broadcaster with impartiality as ones of its core missions allowing only one small minority a platform which they then use to flog a controversial minority prejudice without challenge.

    One side of the story, nothing about the economic costs and damage and how it is affecting the UK and for what actual concrete benefits so far. CO2 is still rising, the UK cuts have done nothing and will do nothing to the natural carbon cycle other than making it accelerate slightly.

    Impartial my arse.


  4. Guest Who says:

    I know that last question is rhetorical.
    You could always ask it of the BBC, in the spirit of holding the powerful to account.
    For a laugh.


  5. LondonCalling says:

    The bBC splutters endlessly about the supposed “influence” of Murdoch on Government, unable to attribute anything other than a competing interest in broadcasting license, but the likes of Greenpeace are constantly in and out of Goverment’s offices. Huhne’s diary was wall to wall pressure groups, unelected, undemocratic, and full of green horseshit, trying to fiddle with our energy policies. Screw them, for they are screwing us.


  6. johnnythefish says:

    ‘The dash for gas’. A relatively new and powerful mantra that underpins the Beeb narrative very nicely – infers greed and haste, capitalists eager to make quick bucks and stuff the consequences. No mention of what a heap of shit we’re going to be in without it. ‘The b-BBC, coming to help wreck a country near you’.


    • john in cheshire says:

      Wasn’t the term dash for gas coined in the 1970s when North Sea Gas was coming ashore and we were converting from old Towns Gas (produced from coal – of which we still have abundence) to new Natural Gas? Progress? What goes around comes around. The sad thing is that all the socialist meddling in the supposed free market has cost us too much and produced absolutely nothing that wouldn’t have been produced if they’d kept their stupid, ignorant socialist noses out of such matters.


      • johnnythefish says:

        I think you’re right there, but somehow I remember it always had a positive spin on it, based on the premise that it was going to reverse our balance of payments deficit – a light at the end of the dark tunnel of the 70s. So ‘dash’ = exciting, let’s get ourselves out of this mess asap. Now it’s in the context of evil fracking, and the continuing b-BBC narrative of fossil fuels = CO2 emissions = global warming. In other words, totally negative.


  7. George R says:

    For high-cost green windbag, HARRABIN (returned from a year off on full pay, but still propagandising in America):

    -average wind speed forecast for Britain’s wind farm ridden Western coast for next few days: about 7 mph.