Clean Energy, Dirty Money

The BBC has made it their mission in life to seek out corporate corruption, greed and vested interests lining their pockets at tax payer’s expense….Coca Cola, McDonalds, G4S all being recent targets of the BBC’s anti-capitalist outrage, never mind bankers and oil companies.

Richard Black was very eager to ‘expose’ the Heartland Institute’s finances when he thought they were dodgy, or he could represent them as such.   Black went to town on the Institute smearing them as far as he could….unfortunately for him most of it was rubbish…and Black was forced to admit it…though only by pressure from the Public who made him admit that the Heartland documents were stolen…however he still omitted to reveal that the central document was actually a forgery.  Why? Because of course Heartland publishes sceptical reports on climate change. A crime in the BBC book.

However Black and the BBC are utterly silent when, as mentioned before, a Tory MP is shown to have massive vested interests in promoting pro-climate change legislation and industrial policy…that MP being Tim Yeo….not to mention Lord Deben (AKA John Gummer).

The money swirling around is astonishing…and of course most of it comes from government subsidies at the end of the day to green industries that are not paying their way.

Christopher Booker in the Telegraph and Guido have related the whole sorry saga… cannot fail to think that this is entirely wrong…that two of the most influential men in the government in relation to climate change are also in a position to make large sums of money from decisions they themselves make in altering government energy policy.

Curious indeed how silent the BBC remain months after this story first surfaced….not to mention that Cameron’s father-in-law makes £1000 per day from wind farms on his land…at any other time the BBC would be raining hell upon him and his son-in-law.

It seems that the BBC’s commitment to the uptake of renewable energy and climate change propaganda means that they subsume all journalistic principles and corrupt themselves in order to prevent any awkward questions being asked about just exactly where all the money is going and who is benefiting.

Yeo may say he has declared some of these interests…but that didn’t stop the BBC going to town on Jeremy Hunt for his belief that the BSkyB bid should be allowed to go ahead before he was put in charge of the decision making process.  And of course Hunt was not making up to £200,000 per year out of his declared interest.

As Guido says: ‘Given that Yeo makes over £100,000 each year from private green investments, using his role to lobby on behalf of the industry for subsidies represents a serious conflict of interest. This is the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee. Replace the words “green” with “oil”…

Unprincipled, Unscrupulous, venal, corrupt?

The ends justify the means.

Here are a few links to Booker and Guido:

Tim Yeo’s Heathrow to China Bonanza

Video: Another Heathrow Dough Blow for Yeo

Taxi Trouble Mounts for Tim Yeo Eco City Vehicles CEO Signed Age Limit Deal

Why Tim Yeo is Really Upset About Green Cuts


These are some more extremely interesting stories about the effect that adopting renewable energy solutions is having upon German industry and just how effective wind farms really are (Needless to say they are not on the BBC):

Germany’s new “renewable” energy policy

‘It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.

In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.

He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.

Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany.’


Energy Revolution Hiccups Grid Instability Has Industry Scrambling for Solutions 

Sudden fluctuations in Germany’s power grid are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies. While many of them have responded by getting their own power generators and regulators to help minimize the risks, they warn that companies might be forced to leave if the government doesn’t deal with the issues fast.

It was 3 a.m. on a Wednesday when the machines suddenly ground to a halt at Hydro Aluminium in Hamburg. The rolling mill’s highly sensitive monitor stopped production so abruptly that the aluminum belts snagged. They hit the machines and destroyed a piece of the mill. The reason: The voltage off the electricity grid weakened for just a millisecond.

Workers had to free half-finished aluminum rolls from the machines, and several hours passed before they could be restarted. The damage to the machines cost some €10,000 ($12,300).

In the following three weeks, the voltage weakened at the Hamburg factory two more times, each time for a fraction of second. Since the machines were on a production break both times, there was no damage. Still, the company invested €150,000 to set up its own emergency power supply, using batteries, to protect itself from future damages.

“It could have affected us again in the middle of production and even led to a fire,” said plant manager Axel Brand. “That would have been really expensive.”

Ambitious Goals

At other industrial companies, executives at the highest levels are also thinking about freeing themselves from Germany’s electricity grid to cushion the consequences of the country’s transition to renewable energy.


byBishop Hill 

Wind produces more CO2 than gas – the numbers

Ever since Gordon Hughes’ report noted that wind power was more likely to produce more carbon dioxide emissions than gas, I have been looking for the figures behind the claim. In the comments, someone has now posted some details that seem to meet the bill. Although these are not Hughes’ own numbers -they were submitted in evidence to Parliament by an engineer – I assume they are similar.

Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Clean Energy, Dirty Money

  1. David Preiser (USA) says:

    But “green energy” is an approved thought. So most Warmists will feel that Yeo can make as much money off it as he likes. Revolving door principles.


  2. Simon says:

    I wrote to my constituency MP Andrew Lansley about Tim Yeo’s vested interests, and his reply was effectively ‘as he declared it beforehand, it’s ok‘!! So there we have it, a Secretary of State endorsing the corruption of vested interests as though it were all above board and dandy.

    Sorry Mr Lansley, no it’s not ok! Not by a mile! Whilst we want politicians with strong views, we also require them to be principled and avoid any whisper of vested interest. Either you are an MP, or you are a business consultant, you must not be both simultaneously, and your judgement and decision making whilst an MP must be transparently and scrupulously clean.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:


      So they knew he had a conflict of interest and appointed him to the position anyway? That is piss-poor management.


    • London Calling says:

      Just because a conflict of interest is declared doesn’t mean it ceases to be a conflict interest. Lansley knows perfectly well Yeo is not accused of concealing his conflict of interest, but of having and excercising conflicted interest. Lansley follows standard political practice. “I have given you an answer (even though it is irrelevant to the issue at hand). End of” He is as despicable as Yeo.


      • Span Ows says:


        Of course it doesn’t matter that this paedophile is working at the primary school, he told us at the interview!


    • Guest Who says:

      Writing to a Minsiter/Gov Dept/ MP on most issues, especially any that are controversial or which stray into party political hot zones, is usually a fairly pointless process.
      They have to respond, so you do get a reply, but 9/10 times its either waffle or template patronising to make you go away and leave them alone to do whatever they think it is they are meant to do as representation sure isn’t it.
      A bit like another entity one could name.
      Difference being, an MP or Governing party has to impress or at the end of a few years… they can be changed.


      • Guest Who says:

        Also the BBC has shown that conflict of interest is one area that it can, when it suits, be a ‘no-go’ area for them, albeit on an often uniquely selective basis.
        Either the person is espousing a cause the BBC champions, or it is a member of staff doing what they would hold others to account for.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Hey, maybe Yeo is actually pure as the driven snow. Just because it could be conflict of interest doesn’t mean he’s doing anything untow…..

          Damn, almost typed that whole sentence without laughing.

          Beeboids like Richard Black are always on the lookout for the evildoers who oppose his ideas who make money off energy companies, yet Yeo seems to have escaped scrutiny. Curious.


  3. johnnythefish says:

    I am mystified as to why all three major parties seem totally committed to unrealistic, economically-suicidal CO2 reductions and ‘renewable’ energy which is neither renewable nor a substitute for any of the traditional energy sources which have given us a steady and reliable supply of gas and electricity for decades (power, rail and coal strikes notwithstanding).

    Add to that a point blank refusal to increase our airport capacity, whilst every developed and developing nation on earth is accelerating theirs, and you have to conclude that the majority of our politicians are hooked on the Big Green agenda as espoused by Greenpeace, the WWF, the UN, Clinton, Gore and all the other has-been political hangers-on, which unequivocally demands the de-industrialisation of the world to save us from ecological doom.

    Germany seem to be waking up and saying they’ll be no part of it, by a last-minute drive to increase their coal-fired energy production (having foolishly abandoned nuclear). It will be interesting to see who in Europe follows their lead, but you can bet your bottom dollar it won’t include the UK. So as the old joke goes, in a few years’ time will the last person to leave the country switch the lights out. But hang on a minute, no need – they will already have gone out.


    • Pah says:

      There is a very simple notion behind the green agenda for renewable energy and that is that the supply of fossil fuels is finite. It will remain finite until we learn who to make them cheaply. Oh and before anyone goes mental over that claim even if there is 300 years worth left, it is still a finite supply – eventually it will run out.
      The West is heavily dependent upon oil – it is the one resource that keep modern capitalism moving. Huge parts of the Western economy rely on it. The loss of oil from the economy would be catastrophic. This is sufficient reason for many lefties to try and demonise oil use.
      Oil was a prime target before WW1 and a heavy influence in Germany’s interest in the Balkans. Oil is a reason for the Middle East conflict too – the USSR wanted the Arabs oil for its sole use and, if Israel hadn’t existed would have got it. If the Arabs didn’t have oil then no-one in the East or West would support them in their genocidal dreams. Neither would we have to pussyfoot around with the murderous feckers.
      There are also ‘new’ economies that show every sign of becoming as heavily dependent on oil as the West, namely Brazil, India and most importantly China. China wants the world’s oil and coal for its own ever increasing use and it is prepared to compete for it. Ever wonder why the left in the UK is so keen on getting rid of fossil fuels? Now that the NUM is a spent force it can happily betray it’s old shock troops with impunity. The less we use the more China has available.
      In the past politicians have tried to persuade people to use less fuel, to be more economical and demand has increased. They have tried taxation and demand has increased. Now China is heavily involved they have moved onto the lefts favourite tactic – fear. We’re all doomed Mr Mainwaring.
      So why does anyone on the right support this nonsense? Well there is, for the grasping elites, also a huge amount of money to be made from environmental scams like CO2 trading and wind subsidies.
      So we have a finite resource with increasing demand creating a problem ‘solved’ by tactics which cheer the left and enrich the right.

      That’s why all three main parties are on side.



      • johnnythefish says:

        I accept a lot of what you say and especially the 2nd law of thermodynamics – entropy – which tells us all energy is finite.

        However, this does not justify the short-term dash for inefficient, unreliabale ‘sustainables’ which in the best of times would be inviting economic suicide but in the present climate guarantees it. Reserves of shale oil and gas are looking very promising but to say politicians in this country are reluctant to exploit them would be an understatement. Of course, it would still be a short(ish) term fix until the scientific community stops lecturing us about our CO2 emissions and starts concentrating its efforts on inventing a form of energy that is reliable and more sustainable than oil and gas.

        Also, your answer does not mention the semi-abandonment of nuclear which, along with the rest of our energy strategy, Labour kicked into the long grass for this government to sort out.

        And as for the ‘Right’ buying into the global warming/ecological Armageddon/must have sustainables myth purely to make money, I don’t particularly see that in the US, though our correspondents from over the pond might correct me.


        • Pah says:

          I wasn’t excusing the short term thinking merely stating it. Show me a politician who sees further than the next election!

          As for 2LT. Er no. There are 64 years* of P90 reserves in oil from the top 17 producers. That sort of finite.

          The objections to nuclear have quietened since 1991 – I wonder why? I wonder if the objectors lost an income source around that time?

          Nuclear may be an answer, fusion (ho, ho) certainly would be.

          Any new sources such as shale gas would have to be weighted against rising world demand. If the UK kept all of Blackpool’s shale to itself I wonder what the political repercussions would be? Independance for Scotland might suddenly be less appealing. How would the EU react – massive taxes?

          * yes I know figures vary and Venuzela has 340 years left and barring new discovery and no change in usage yada yada yada.


      • Mat says:

        So if it does run out a few hundred years from now er will there be a human race to worry about it? assuming any one of the many extinction level events that could take place !


      • Richard Pinder says:

        Running out of oil is not a problem for the foreseeable future. If eventually it does become a problem, then the alternatives would become cost effective. Subsidising alternatives to oil with taxpayers money is idiotic when you consider that people who invest in oil are not doing so because the oil is not running out and therefore very profitable for the foreseeable future, with maybe an exception for Gas from the new fracking process. People who invest in oil will eventually transfer their investments to alternatives if there is and ever going to be a problem. The 20th century has shown that the interference of politics in the free market by socialism always produces an expensive disaster. The idea that our civilization would always be dependent on oil is evidence for an inferior mindset. Oil is the most cost effective fuel for the foreseeable future and since Victorian times there has always been ideas of how our civilization could progress without any oil at all. The problem for this has always been that Oil is cheap. So as someone with one of the highest IQs in Mensa. The answer is that apart from the Labour MP Graham Stringer, all three political parties are dominated by morons.


  4. Amounderness Lad says:

    Is this the same Tim Yeo who has suddenly changed his mind about a new runway at Heathrow, which he previously objected to on green emissions grounds but now says don’t matter at all, because we desperately need more direct flights to the growing economies of the Far East?
    Is it the very same Tim Yeo who is up to his money grubbing neck in a business which has just signed up to very lucrative deal with a Chinese bio-fuels producer?
    As the saying goes – Follow the money.


  5. Reed says:

    “corruption, greed and vested interests lining their pockets at tax payer’s expense”

    …descriptions that apply as much, if not more, to the biggest vested interests of them all – the unions.

    …waiting for the BBC’s exposé of the venality resulting from the close involvement of the Labour party with the unions, and the cost to the electorate and taxpayer.


  6. Messenger says:

    Couldn’t Yeo and Gummer be reported to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? It now includes some lay members, who might be more receptive than the MPs appear to be to pursuing corruption in high places.


  7. DJ says:

    John Gummer is the perfect example of the BBC’s Good Dog/Bad Dog reporting. For years every BBC report on him referenced the BSE Burger incident. Now he’s climbed on the Green Gravy Train, suddenly he’s a respected elder statesman.


  8. London Calling says:

    The pennies just dropped. Yeo’s position, with his snout in the green trough, must be a political calculation – precisely because he is filling his boots he can be relied on push renewables and climate change long after the wheels have come off the trolley. No Pauline conversion for our Tim. Hell will freeze over first. Cameron can’t trust an honest man, but he knows he can trust a crook.


  9. chrisH says:

    My dear BBC clients.
    Couldn`t be easier really-it is “clean money” , once it has been sanctified by we here at the BBC.
    A good example would be the voluntary contribution that you lambs make towards Mark Byfords pension pot, or to assorted Paxmans, Warks, Dimblebys private school educational fees…this is CLEAN money.
    Others would be Guardian subscriptions, Moyles CCTV and a taxi on permanent standby for Noel Gallagher or Joey Barton…as well as NHS, International Development , Islamic patchwork,and Climate Boiling awareness raising…can`t go wrong with such “investment”.
    “Dirty money”?…eeuw! Now that would be anything NOT sanctified by passing through the BBC, the Labour Party, the Unions, the trustie unis and climate change, crime rehab, social serfices, and welfare stuff as agreed to by us.
    Anything private, American, Jewish, Christian, Fast foody, boozy, smoky, huntish or out of a white van, containing a white person trying to sell something….eugh!
    So then -that`s easy…clean money is what the BBC say it is…dirty money is what we pass around, and it will never be clean until the State/the BBC have passed it through themselves and shat it back all over your floors…only THEN is it clean!
    Do call again…I`m glad that we had this chat!