David Attenborough Demands Unlimited Clean Energy at Davos

Photograph of David Attenborough at ARKive’s launch in Bristol, England, author Wildscreen https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Attenborough_(cropped).jpg

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Veteran Nature Program presenter David Attenborough has urged business and political leaders at Davos to provide practical solutions for unlimited clean energy, to prevent climate catastrophe.

‘We need a plan’: Attenborough urges Davos leaders to act on climate change

If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe that they will give permission to business and governments to get on with the practical solutions. And as a species, we are expert problem solvers.

“But we haven’t yet applied ourselves to this problem with the focus that it requires.

The Blue Planet and Dynasties narrator said: “We can create a world with clean air and water, unlimited energy and fish stocks that will sustain us well into the future. But to do that, we need a plan.”

Read more: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/we-need-a-plan-attenborough-urges-davos-leaders-to-act-on-climate-change

I have to say I fully endorse David Attenborough’s call for unlimited energy, I would like to have access to unlimited clean energy as well. If only the engineers would get on with it and build the magic boxes, it’s not like we haven’t repeatedly asked, pleaded and demanded that they stop messing about and come up with a solution.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Guy-Johnson
January 23, 2019 10:07 am

Don’t know why anyone should take any more notice of him than they would of me. He’s just a TV presenter who now seems to be being used by environmental activists to push their cause.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 23, 2019 10:19 am

He did forget the other 2 caveat requirements of

Reply to  Bryan A
January 23, 2019 10:40 am

Anything supplied by government is free. At least that what the liberals keep telling me.

Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2019 12:01 pm

Depends on the type of government. The statement is true if it is a sovereign government; it is not true for subservient governments. At least that is how the US Constitution works. Don’t know enough about the constitutions of other governments.

Here is the reason the statement is true for the federal government of the US. The federal government has the right to issue coins and bills of credit (the paper equivalent of coins). States, counties and municipalities are prevented by the Constitution from issuing coins and bills of credit.

Does the federal government have to tax to mint coins? No. Does it have to borrow to mint coins. No. The same things are true for bills of credit. So the federal government can buy or supply things for free (or pretty much next to nothing). States can’t.

The fact that the Federal government does not issue coins or bills of credit in sufficient amounts to pay for anything it wants is due to politics, not the legality of doing it. Simply put, politicians want an excuse for not buying what their citizens need for free. They want to be able to tell the citizens the government can not afford what the people want or need.

Federico Bär
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
January 24, 2019 2:34 pm

@davidgmillsatty: Right so! This shows how something can be obtained at no cost indeed! True, there IS a cost, it’s called political damage, but who cares! Politicians come and go, unaware of worries, regrets and/or responsibilities.
A pleasure to read your crystal-clear, irony-free explanation, sir!

Leo Smith
Reply to  Bryan A
January 23, 2019 10:51 am

Revamped nuclear in a better regulatory environment is the only technology that does all of that.

But the public has to see it as a saviour not a pollution and risk problem.

Reply to  Leo Smith
January 23, 2019 12:02 pm

Fusion is the only technology that does all of that, but some people are unwilling to wait for the ITER to provide what we need in order to make that a reality.

Reply to  JerryC
January 23, 2019 12:10 pm

… unwilling to wait…?

Do we have a choice? I’m waiting.

Reply to  JerryC
January 23, 2019 6:46 pm

Use the sun. It’s fusion and it already works. No nuclear waste problem either.

Reply to  JerryC
January 23, 2019 8:36 pm

ITER is a dog. Former Fusion Director at DoE Robert Hirsch is on record that magnetic confinement designs such as ITER will never be able to provide commercial electric power.

Other approaches to fusion are actively being developed with private capital.

Bryan A
Reply to  JerryC
January 23, 2019 8:51 pm

Use the sun. It’s fusion and it already works. No nuclear waste problem either.

Doesn’t work well before/between 6:00am and 10:30 or after 2:30 (winter) 4:30 (summer) or 50degrees N Latitude. And doesn’t work at all after 5:00pm (winter) 9:00pm (summer) or before 6:00am
Not to mention reduced capacity on cloudy days possibly down to Nil
Yes Solar is Fusion but it’s unreliable on any given day, sometimes for weeks and never at night.

Bryan A
Reply to  JerryC
January 23, 2019 8:53 pm

Nuclear is available rain or shine, windy or still, day or night 24/365.
Except for a 2 week period when a unit is taken offline for refueling

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 23, 2019 12:46 pm

When they begin to act like it is a crisis, I will believe it is a crisis.

The first symptom will be strong demand for nuclear energy.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 23, 2019 1:21 pm

When they give up flying their private jets in Davos I might give a flying f*ck.

“Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk”

“……..up to 1,500 individual private jets will fly to and from airfields serving the Swiss ski resort this week.”

“Political and business leaders and lobbyists are opting for bigger, more expensive aircrafts, according to analysis by the Air Charter Service, which found the number of private jet flights grew by 11% last year.”

“……..possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one another”. Last year, more than 1,300 aircraft flights were recorded at the conference, the highest number since ACS began recording private jet activity in 2013.

But…..but……Sir Davy Attenborough says this is all immoral and destroying the planet……as he walks home.

Ha effing Ha!

Bryan A
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 23, 2019 2:23 pm

Through the Snow…Uphill…In both directions

Rhoda R
Reply to  Bryan A
January 23, 2019 12:01 pm

Add a third caveat: Not violate the laws of physics.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Bryan A
January 23, 2019 12:27 pm

Unlimited, affordable, reliable.

Pick two.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  James Schrumpf
January 23, 2019 1:42 pm

Fossil fuels is the closest you can get to picking all three… for now, at least.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 24, 2019 12:37 pm

Given the 6 hour time slot when Solar Power is at it’s most robust, to get your power from Solar at night (From where the sun is still shining at least) would require enough solar panels to create the entire global consumption be placed on every quarter of the surface since only 1/4 of the surface is at max potential at any given time

Reply to  James Schrumpf
January 23, 2019 4:33 pm

You’re just a uptopia denier

We all know the next stunning renewable development is imminent,coming,under development, just over the horizon and needs just a bit more funding. All will be well, my unicorn said so

Reply to  James Schrumpf
January 23, 2019 6:47 pm

The sun.

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
January 23, 2019 8:55 pm

The sun don’t shine at night and is only productive for 6 hours every 24

michael hart
Reply to  Greg
January 23, 2019 9:34 pm

And the harvestable energy density per square meter for solar and wind is just not good enough. Never will be. We also want to use the surface of the earth for other purposes: to live on, play on, work on, grow our food on, etc, etc.

We have already lost decades in our optimization of nuclear power because of kowtowing to so-called environmentalists. If they really cared for the environment they would bring up their children to become nuclear engineers, not Jane Fonda lookalikes.

Similarly, somebody who really wants to help reduce human suffering from cancer becomes an oncologist, or a molecular biologist, or a medicinal chemist. They do not become an activist campaigning for new laws to make cancer illegal.

Reply to  Greg
January 24, 2019 2:05 am

Bryan A
January 23, 2019 at 8:55 pm

“The sun don’t shine at night”

Yes it does & it’s productive for 24 hrs/day.

You may not get accsess to it… but it’s there.

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
January 24, 2019 12:30 pm

Not in My Country.
Except for the extreme north of Alaska for a few weeks per year but the solar incident angle is far too low to be effective.
To convert the Island of Manhattan (NY NY) to 100% Solar in every aspect of energy use 24/7 would require covering an area the size of Connecticut with Solar Panels and Long Island with battery backups

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
January 24, 2019 12:34 pm


January 24, 2019 at 2:05 am

Bryan A
January 23, 2019 at 8:55 pm

“The sun don’t shine at night”

Yes it does & it’s productive for 24 hrs/day.

You may not get accsess to it… but it’s there.

Last time I looked, the Sun Sets every day (quite spectacularly too). You won’t be getting your solar power from a country on the other side of the planet during your night because THEY will be using it themselves during their day time.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
January 23, 2019 7:55 pm

He said practical, that covers affordable and reliable. He said clean. He said unlimited.

We don’t have fusion (yet), so it’s not practical (yet). But we do have fission, and the problems are political, not engineering. So when the Greens stop executing their old Soviet anti-nuke code, we’ll know they’re serious.

Michael Keal
Reply to  LarryD
January 24, 2019 1:34 pm

We have a proven reliable technology that already works right now in fact has been working for more than 100 years. Coal-fired electricity generation. It also happens to be cheap, a lot cheaper than nuclear. Especially when one adds in the cost of insurance. Here in the UK the government (in other words the taxpayer) takes the hit if one of them goes boom because they are uninsurable. Keep building lots of coal plants until something proven to be better and cheaper comes along.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
January 24, 2019 12:09 pm

No. Pick the nuclear power we developed at Oak Ridge (molten salt cooling and the thorium cycle) and never used. Here is an Oak Ridge documentary from the time. Molten salt, because it stays liquid for a 1000 degrees C is what makes it affordable. Thorium makes it unlimited for all practical purposes. Nuclear fission has proven to be very reliable.


Supply this video to Attenborough.

lower case fred
Reply to  Bryan A
January 24, 2019 6:34 am

Affordable, Reliable, and PORTABLE.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 23, 2019 10:38 am

Don’t forget he is employed by the BBC that rampant green fake news organisation.

Reply to  keith
January 23, 2019 12:21 pm

He’s an ancient old fogey that made nice programs 30-40 yrs ago,a bit like some sort of “Dad’s army” nostalgia seller the BBC program recycling machine is famous for.

Well past the sell by date, like the other nutcase green dictator CAPITAIN COUSTEAU of CALYPSO fame.
What looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck…

Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 23, 2019 1:26 pm

But he is a secular saint!
Isn’t he??


Whilst I share general concerns about wildlife – rhinos may not last fifty years in the wild, for example – I think St. David has been guzzling the Kool-Aid with the best of them. It keeps him in clean underwear, through the munificence of the BBC [and, no, we are not allowed to know how much he trousers –
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/22/bbc-extraordinary-claim-does-not-know-star-names-paid/ ].
Shock horror.


Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 23, 2019 7:03 pm

Britain’s answer to David Suzuki.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 23, 2019 11:04 am

David Attenborough apparently skipped courses in science and engineering. Here is a primer:

First, this is the economic solution for intermittent green energy – typically wind and solar power:
1. Build your wind or solar power system and connect it to the grid.
2. Build your back-up system consisting of 100% equivalent capacity in gas turbine generators.
3. Using high explosives, blow your wind or solar power system all to hell.
4. Run your back-up gas turbine generators 24/7.
5. To save even more money, skip steps 1 and 3.
Despite many trillions in squandered subsidies, green energy has increased from just above 1% to just below 2% is recent decades. Green energy is not green and provides little useful (dispatchable) energy.

Second, understand that fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in future decades. Ban fossil fuels and everyone in Britain is dead in a month.

Third, understand that atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. Look up “CO2 starvation” during ice ages.

Fourth, CO2 is NOT a major driver of global warming – any warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be minor and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

Fifth, Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in just England and Wales last winter – an Excess Winter Death rate almost three times the per-capita average in the USA.

Sixth, the only proved solution for global energy is nuclear, but greens hate nuclear more than they hate fossil fuels.

Seventh, … OK. I give up – try as you may, you cannot fix stupid.

Clay Sanborn
January 23, 2019 11:24 am

That sums it up very well. Would make a good syllabus for “Climate Truth 101” course. Day 1 of the course – read the syllabus; class dismissed for the term.

January 23, 2019 7:48 pm

Thank you Clay for your kind comments.

I can now continue…

Seventh, even of ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, this calculated MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is not nearly enough to produce dangerous global warming. Climate computer models use much higher ASSUMED values to create false alarm.

Eighth, atmospheric CO2 trends lag global temperature trends at all measured time scales, from ~9 months in the modern data record on a ~3 year natural cycle to ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a much longer time cycle. Rational observers have noted that the future cannot cause the past.

Ninth, the continued false warming “adjustments” of the surface temperature record, the fraudulent Mann hockey stick embraced by the IPCC and the Climategate emails all prove the criminal intent of the leaders of the global warming/climate change scam.

Tenth, the IPCC and the leaders of the global warming movement have a perfectly negative predictive track record – every one of their very-scary predictions of runaway catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather have failed to materialize. The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific competence, and the warmist cabal have a perfectly negative predictive track record, demonstrated negative competence, and negative personal credibility. Nobody should believe them or their alarmist nonsense.

Eleventh, we published with confidence in 2002 in a written debate with the leftist Pembina Institute:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

Twelfth, we also published with confidence in the same 2002 debate:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Past decades of actual global observations adequately prove that these two statements are correct to date. Since then, many trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been wasted due to false global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense. Competent scientists and engineers have known these facts for decades, and we told you so, 17 years ago.

January 23, 2019 7:58 pm

Seventh, even if

Chris Wright
January 24, 2019 3:19 am

Sounds like a good plan.
Right now the UK’s wind energy is generating 235 Megawatts, in other words virtually zero. And it’s freezing cold. It’s far, far beyond stupid. It’s criminal.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 23, 2019 1:31 pm

“He’s just a TV presenter”

So is David Suzuki*, and he has leveraged being able to read a script in a decent voice to running one of our largest grifting organizations currently removing loose loonies and toonies** from innmmerate twits.

* yes, he is a real scientist. His expertise is fruit flies, nothing else.
** thats $1 and $2 coins.

Big T
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 23, 2019 6:09 pm

Did he ride his bike to the meetin’? If not his voice is null and void.

Lawrence Ayres
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 24, 2019 12:16 am

He once had a mate on the BBC who was equally respected as a naturalist, David Bellamy but Mr. Bellamy knew that global warming was rubbish and said so publicly. The BBC sacked him so Attenborough saw where the money was and adapted to the new profitable norm. He also saw what happens to non-believers.

Chris Wright
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 24, 2019 3:14 am

David Attenborough has stated that mankind is a plague, presumably because we’re destroying the planet.
Of course, as well as insulting 7 billion people he is completely deluded.

Far from destroying the planet, it seems that mankind is making it greener. Nature clearly *loves* CO2.
It’s a supreme irony: green idiots like Attenborough endlessly demonise the very thing that makes the planet green.

There’s a big problem with global warming: there isn’t enough of it!

January 23, 2019 10:07 am

Attenborough would be at odds with the green faction represented by Paul Ehrlich, who stated that having unlimited energy would be “like giving an idiot child a machine gun”.

Curious George
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 23, 2019 10:17 am

An easier solution would be to limit the world’s population to the upper 10,000, but it is politically incorrect to speak about loudly.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Curious George
January 23, 2019 10:24 am

Sorry, Genocide is not easier than providing clean energy.

Reply to  A C Osborn
January 23, 2019 12:15 pm

it doesn’t have to be a comparison (or choice) when one desired outcome facilitates the other.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  A C Osborn
January 23, 2019 1:43 pm

It’s not easier because they fight back. They just don’t get it do they? Paradise could be for everyone (who’s left). If only they understood what’s at stake.

Reply to  A C Osborn
January 23, 2019 2:32 pm

I don’t know, AC. I think the various Socialists and Communists of the last hundred years have proven that Genocide is surprisingly easy. I just don’t know why so many people on the Left keep suggesting a massive die off of humans would be a solution to anything.

I do note however that almost every time it’s tried, it ends up being someone OTHER then those promoting it that are expected to do the dieing.


Reply to  Curious George
January 23, 2019 10:57 am

Don’t give them ideas. They already have bad enough as of now.

D Anderson
Reply to  Curious George
January 23, 2019 11:34 am

Upper? Can I help you decide who is in the upper?

Reply to  D Anderson
January 23, 2019 11:50 am

They’ve already self selected

Lawrence Ayres
Reply to  Curious George
January 24, 2019 12:20 am

I seriously doubt if any of the 10000 would know how to grow food or to make things so they would just die out through incompetence. There would be no need for the powerful and good if they could not feed themselves. Ask the Mayan priests.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 23, 2019 10:20 am

Having unlimited energy would be like giving Paul Earlich a machine gun???

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Bryan A
January 23, 2019 1:47 pm

I’ve heard it said that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Paul has written a book and become famous for both the book contents, and his utter failure to have a correct prediction, ever. May as well just give him a machine gun and see if he can hit anything…

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
January 23, 2019 2:25 pm

Are you implying he couldn’t hit a barn with an elephant?

Reply to  Bryan A
January 23, 2019 2:35 pm

He could shoot at the ground and miss.

Reply to  Bryan A
January 23, 2019 2:49 pm

Shoot at the ground and hit his foot.

January 23, 2019 10:08 am

“But all it’s really going to take is for my friends and I put in charge of everything, with the power to enforce our will upon the occasional skeptical “citizen”.”

That’s the part they always forget to say out loud.

January 23, 2019 10:10 am

I used to have high regards of the man.
Not so anymore.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  John
January 23, 2019 6:59 pm

Yep. His ‘Life On Earth’ and ‘Blue Planet’ series were epic. He inspired me in many ways. Then he lost his mind.

January 23, 2019 10:14 am

Attenborough has a really smooth, hushed, soothing voice. Therein ends my admiration of him.

Reply to  kenji
January 23, 2019 11:22 am

Give man a chance, he’s only 92 and 3/4.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  vukcevic
January 24, 2019 8:53 pm

Good point. I let Stephen Hawking slide for the same reason and more.

But Neil deGrasse Tyson has no excuse. He knows better.

John Bell
January 23, 2019 10:16 am

The way he jets and helicopters all around to present the case for fake climate change, he is a master hypocrite.

Bill Powers
January 23, 2019 10:17 am

To Eric’s point who doesn’t want what Attenborough wants or seems to be demanding. Beam me up Scottie. I want to be able to transport and avoid airport security but I don’t throw tantrums because somebody hasn’t developed that ability yet.

John Bell
January 23, 2019 10:17 am

DAVOS!? I thought there was just a climate conference in Poland, what another one?

Bill Powers
Reply to  John Bell
January 23, 2019 10:29 am

In this last quarterly conference they tabled the motion to hold monthly meetings.

Reply to  John Bell
January 23, 2019 1:30 pm

John Bell

Davos is a global economics conference. It’s been held in the same luxurious Swiss Alpine village for the last 50 years.

And on the agenda this year is how to develop globalisation and change capitalism.

This of course includes the climate as a necessary component, to terrify the proles.

See my post above on the increasing number, and size of private jets are commissioned to transport the elite to and from this ‘essential’ conference. That is, yet another’essential’ conference.

Reply to  John Bell
January 24, 2019 1:53 am

Pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers need work too

Ben Gunn
January 23, 2019 10:19 am

All I need to know is if he took one of the 1200 private jets to get to Davos?

Reply to  Ben Gunn
January 23, 2019 12:07 pm

Yes, he did

James Beaver
Reply to  Ben Gunn
January 23, 2019 2:40 pm

The folks going to Davos might want to check

{scroll down about 2/3rds to the “Daily Hot Flights” }

Taking a charter flight to Davos probably catches quite a lot of radiation! 60-70 times sea level dose rate!!

January 23, 2019 10:21 am

I’m afraid he lost the plot some while ago, I was reading an interview with him recently where he claimed that he was sceptical about agw until he was shown a graph showing, as he described it, co2 in lockstep with temperature.
He didn’t have enough curiosity or nouse to discover that the relationship was the wrong way round!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  sunderlandsteve
January 23, 2019 2:15 pm

” I was reading an interview with him [David Attenborough] recently where he claimed that he was sceptical about agw until he was shown a graph showing, as he described it, co2 in lockstep with temperature.”

Yes, that phony “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart has fooled a lot of people.

David Attenborough should read the Climategate emails. He will find out that he has been duped by some sly characters.

Here’s the real temperature profile of the globe David:


The real global temperature profile is the chart on the left, the US surface temperature chart, which shows temperatures were just as warm during the 1930’s as they are today, There is no unprecedented heat to contend with, we’ve been here before in the past.

The chart on the right is the bogus, bastardized modern-period Hockey Stick chart which shows temperatures getting hotter and hotter with each succeeding decade. That’s the chart that fooled you, David.

The Climategate conspirators took the global temperature profile on the left and turned it into the Hockey Stick chart on the right in an effort to bolster their case for human-caused Global Warming/Climate change.

The Climategate conspirators say the US chart doesn’t represent the global temperature profile, but all one has to do is look at unmodified (by the conspirators) local and regional temperature charts from around the world and you will see that they all, more or less, resemble the US surface temperature chart profile which is that the 1930’s were as warm or warmer than subsequent years. None of the unmodified charts resemble the bogus Hockey Stick temperature profile of “hotter and hotter” There is no correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels.

You have been played for a fool, David Attenborough. You should be angry about that. This CAGW scam has caused enormous harm to humanity and the Earth and the creatures that live in it! With no end in sight as long as people like David Attenborough stayed fooled.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  sunderlandsteve
January 23, 2019 4:41 pm

Oh, so all we have to do is show him another graph where CO2 levels have broken step with temperature and pulled off into the Y-axis?

Disappointing that one with such a reputation for hands on activities can be ‘convinced’ by what are effectively a couple of email attachments.

Equally disappointing is the stage management of the message. “Quick, we need a well loved public figure everyone can relate to! No one believed that 12 year old Swedish Girl. Go through the BBC’s back cupboard and see who we can get on short notice.”

January 23, 2019 10:23 am

“But to do that, we need a plan.”
Agree. Plan B, plan A failed.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  vukcevic
January 23, 2019 6:45 pm

What we really need is a B ark.

January 23, 2019 10:25 am

Does David Attenborough think that nuclear is clean?
Small modular ones seem pretty clean to me. So I think the engineers do have the answer Eric.
Mind you what David thinks and what he is paid to say could be very different.

January 23, 2019 10:30 am

David Attenborough? Wasn’t Prince Charles available?

Reply to  leitmotif
January 23, 2019 11:20 am

We are double shifting our 2 best loonies!

Reply to  leitmotif
January 23, 2019 1:18 pm

Prince Charles wasn’t available. He just flipped over his Land Rover, injuring another driver. He was seen driving the next day without a seatbelt on.

Reply to  Trebla
January 23, 2019 1:31 pm

That was Charles’ Father, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.


Bryan A
Reply to  auto
January 23, 2019 2:27 pm


Rod Evans
Reply to  auto
January 23, 2019 3:43 pm

That is correct. Philip was the roll over driver. Charles was unable to make the Davos get together because he had a prior appointment to speak to the trees.
Apparently they keep whispering CO2 in quiet breezes as they seek out their essential nutrient.
Charles was also explaining to the less educated trees that his love of hedge laying, was nothing to do with sex.

Reply to  Trebla
January 23, 2019 5:16 pm

I think you are right, Trebla. I reckon Charlie “borrowed” the old man’s car, pranged it and gave his name as Chookie Enbrough.

Reply to  leitmotif
January 23, 2019 2:08 pm

I believe Prince Charles was… uh … busy … imagining himself to become a tampon so he could be even closer to Camilla. Yeah, I know … ewwwwww!!! But the man is on-tape … speaking like that to his mistress. And I’m going to take advice from THAT loony-tune?

Dave O.
January 23, 2019 10:32 am

Be patient, cold fusion is just a few weeks away. In the mean time, I’d be frozen solid without fossil fuels.

Reply to  Dave O.
January 23, 2019 12:08 pm

Cold fusion is complete BS. Always has been, always will be.

Bryan A
Reply to  JerryC
January 23, 2019 2:29 pm

Perhaps they should try Luke Warm Fusion instead

Reply to  JerryC
January 23, 2019 2:45 pm

I prefer Thai/Cajun Fusion.


January 23, 2019 10:38 am

Demand in one hand, defecate in the other. Tell us which fills up first.
Or, tell us which gets the most attention, positive or negative.

January 23, 2019 10:39 am

What is about leftists and this belief that all they need to do to create what they want, is demand that it be created?

Rhoda R
Reply to  MarkW
January 23, 2019 12:05 pm

They believe in magic.

AGW is not Science
January 23, 2019 10:40 am

“If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe that they will give permission to business and governments to get on with the practical solutions.”

Should read:

“If people can truly be made to accept the propaganda, I believe that they will give permission to business and governments to get on with implementing the useless policies that would do nothing about the alleged “problem” if it was real, while consolidating power and control with the politically connected scum pushing the propaganda, which is the result we, your betters, desire.”

Max Dupilka
January 23, 2019 10:41 am

Unlimited clean energy and fish stocks…and a holodeck. I really want that holodeck.

Joel Snider
January 23, 2019 10:41 am

Gee – wasn’t this the esteemed ‘Sir’ Attenborough who declared the human race a ‘pestilence’? Or was it a plague?

Roger welsh
January 23, 2019 10:46 am

A BBC successful brain bent! All the good things I used to admire him for no longer exist.

Please be aware of the BBC’ s inherent and destructive bias.

Uncontrolled, but a public company.

January 23, 2019 10:47 am

Seems to me that the answer is quantitative, and fairly predictable.

The price of solar power has definitely been going down. Still, the system we just had proposed for our rooftop ended up costing $3.50 per peak output watt; it has no storage, but rather relies on energy credits to make for a “net zero payment” to the local PG&E company. Unfortunately, this also won’t be the case, since PG&E still (now) charges for grid use, connection use (no power delivered), and all the rest of the taxes and levies which it can get away with. So, I expect our power bill to be $100 a month, even with the 7.5 kW peak system in place.

The price of wind power has also been coming down, per kilowatt. The fans are getting bigger — way bigger — upwardsnow of 5,000 kW per fan. But in turn, the net installation price per kW is dropping. Thing is, I do wonder how much more ecologically-sound tappable wind resource there is?

In the US, hydro is pretty much tapped out.

The one thing no one (but we definitely could) do is to use coastal-hills “reverse reservoirs”. Pumping ocean water in, perhaps up as little as 250 meters. Filling up hundreds-of-thousands of acre-feet (hectare-meters, 10,000,000 liters per hectare-foot) with excess renewable energy, for draining in periods of inclement weather, uncoöperative wind, capricious and diurnal variations, seasonality, all that.

Thing is, there are definitely monied interests which while ostensibly glad-handing the while renewable power thing, are definitely working against it in the long run. Companies which have invested thousands of billions of dollars fracking for natural gas, digging millions of oil wells, retrofitting them with low-yield-recovery solvent systems, or who have taken the overburden off of thousands of hills containing coal, or have invested billions digging mines, buying the specialized equipment to mine coal, and all that …

Thing is, those interests are NOT in the least inclined to abandon their investments well short of their expected payback time, unless compensated for the premature losses.

Got that last part?
Unless compensated for the premature cessation losses.

Because ultimately, whether you’re in a capitalist system, or a socialist one, or a commie one, you really don’t want to invest substantial monies only to see no return (or big losses) on the investments.

BUT IT STILL CAN WORK, in a way. (“work”“substantially becoming dependent on renewable energy as a civilization”).

It’ll take the other bitter pill: taxation, tariffs, surcharges, legislation and ultimately, government underwriting the preferred future energy industry.

That pill is anathema to many. The thought of more taxation on something which already has fairly high taxes, in order to displace it, and ultimately to tax it high enough to even largely thwart future demand … well, that’s almost treasonous.

Yet it isn’t.
It turns out to be the only path to implement the renewable-energy-is-our-goal future.
And whilei there’s nothing wrong with the goal, it flies in the face of most-everyone here.

Taxation, to raise the price of the exiting product.
To invest in the future market.

Kind of riles the progressive / libertarian harbored in most peoples hearts.
Just look at the comments here!

Yet, I challenge anyone to describe an accelerated future that substantially replaces petrochemical fuel with renewable electrical (and possibly organic) energy. Without taxation.

That is a serious challenge.
Anyone here up to take a few bites out of the elephant?

Just saying,

Leo Smith
Reply to  GoatGuy
January 23, 2019 10:55 am

Yet, I challenge anyone to describe an accelerated future that substantially replaces petrochemical fuel with renewable electrical (and possibly organic) energy. Without taxation.

Of course it can’t be done.

But if its carbon free energy you want its 50GW of nukes in the UK

WAY cheaper that renewables/storage/mess of transmission lines etc etc.

Nuclear is not a solution.

It’s the only solution.

Reply to  GoatGuy
January 23, 2019 11:05 am

Goatguy, one look at the UK’s grid status page – it doesn’t matter what the cost of solar or wind is (and it is exceptionally high when fairly costed) because you can never have enough – it often produces nothing/negligible on a continental scale! Storage of sufficient capacity to overcome this is just ruinously costly insanity and a physical impossibility.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
January 23, 2019 12:55 pm

Yes, there are times when renewable energy, especially in nations vexed by long, long seasonal fogs, overcast sky, freezing rain … don’t have Solar. Usually though at least “stormy” is positively associated with wind power. Not always.

But in the end, it is one where “sufficient storage capacity” is almost always possible with things liek synthetic hydroelectric (i.e. reverse-pumped reservoirs). Just have to have the highlands and expanses of low-value land to do it. Clearly it wouldn’t be the solution for a lot of shires. But it is for some.

While he’s easy to make fun of, the Elon Musk municipal-scale battery concept isn’t completely feather headed. It is particularly good at dealing with capricious sources (like solar in lightly cloudy weather), back-filling efficiently. Not so good for long stretches of low renewable energy production.

For the longer periods, I think one can make quite decent arguments for “80% renewable, 20% petrochemical, mostly for the longer gotchas”. One might reasonably as other authors have expressed, turn that into something “French” — 60% nuclear, 30% renewable, 10% backstop-petrochemical power.

But there is a calculus of tradeoffs that isn’t all that hard to optimize.
In the end.


Craig from Oz
Reply to  GoatGuy
January 23, 2019 4:57 pm

“… there are times when renewable energy, especially in nations vexed by long, long seasonal fogs, overcast sky, freezing rain … don’t have Solar. ”

Many of these times are commonly referred to as “Night”.

“While he’s easy to make fun of, the Elon Musk municipal-scale battery concept isn’t completely feather headed. It is particularly good at dealing with capricious sources (like solar in lightly cloudy weather), back-filling efficiently. Not so good for long stretches of low renewable energy production.”

You clearly do not live in South Australia. At very best it is a very expensive solution to a problem of their own creation. It – so the fans claim – was never intended to power the state, but help smooth out the transitions when grid collapsing spikes appeared in the system.

Now if our beloved local leaders would just embrace the concept of BASELOAD and commit to a new coal (or even better Nuke) plant then both the problem and the solution needed would completely go away.

Musk is a con, his giant battery is a con, and the wind power obsessed tool of an ex state premier should be forced to spend the rest of his walking life doing community service as an apology for the generation long amount of damage he has done to our state.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  GoatGuy
January 23, 2019 11:06 am

Even taxation, tariffs, etc. aren’t enough. You will need to control the demand side (consumer/user) if you want any chance at building a power generation system based on solar and wind power. That would cause the biggest push-back: telling the consumer that no, you can’t have power when you want it, even if it’s the difference between life and death.

Reply to  GoatGuy
January 23, 2019 11:18 am

Using ocean water for pumped storage is definitely not a good idea. Unless the reservoir and the spillway is completely waterproof the salt water will infiltrate and you will end up creating a salt desert.

ferd berple
Reply to  GoatGuy
January 23, 2019 12:17 pm

replaces petrochemical fuel with renewable electrical (and possibly organic) energy.
electricity is not a fuel. it is a delivery method. you cannot replace fuel with something that is not fuel and expect a satisfactory solution.

once you accept that electricity is not fuel, then it becomes a matter of storing wind and sunlight, as we do now with coal, oil, gas, hydro and nuclear.

the problem is all about storage, so that you can match supply and demand. conventional fuels can all be stored in vast quantities until needed. We have very limited capability to store wind.

Sunlight we can store, in plants, but as has been seen with ethanol, it is hard to break even with plant based energy. similar to fusion. We can build a fusion machine (fusor) for about $1000 that will fuse deuterium and release energy. But it take a lot more energy in than you receive out.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  ferd berple
January 23, 2019 1:44 pm

Aaahh so, ferd b, ……. common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions always pose big problems for the naysayers, the inexperienced and the miseducated.

January 23, 2019 10:47 am

Part of the propaganda push for AGW involves getting the rich and famous to become spokespeople as in advertising. The only thing I can figure out is the rich and famous are wined and dined and convinced it’s their duty to save the world and without them there’s no chance of it. That they will go down in history as being change agents for the good. On another note….. who cares what a sports figure, actor, socialite, or wealthy person believes?

Reply to  markl
January 23, 2019 10:51 am

Joel O'Bryan
January 23, 2019 10:52 am

Why do so many people mistake social fame for simple intelligence?
In this regard, Attenborough is not any different than the bubble-headed beauty contestant/winner expressing her desire to ‘solve world hunger’.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 23, 2019 12:11 pm

Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

January 23, 2019 10:54 am

“And as a species, we are expert problem solvers.”

We’re pretty good at BS detection too…

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Craig
January 23, 2019 11:19 am

“We;re pretty good at BS detection too…”

Craig, the wide-spread belief in the Climate Hustle disproves that assertion pretty handily. We are hardwire-programmed (via evolution’s natural selection) to believe stuff simply on faith based on Appeal to Authority arguments, especially if the claims fit pre-exisitng biases. Hence the use of mass propaganda, celebrities to push it, and rentseeking pseudoscientists to claim “overwhelming consensus”, by those pushing the climate hustle.

Sometimes I think all these types like Al Gore, Attenborough, DiCaprio (and so many others) are all competing for the 21st Century’s title of King of the Bunco men.

The top 19th Century Bunco men included Hungry Joe, Tom O’Brien, and Charles P. Miller.


The 19th Century con men stories are a lost narrative in today’s society. Which commits us to repeating those mistakes every few generations as societal amnesia sets in.

And the catch phrase of Brunco men (con men) has always been, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 23, 2019 11:52 am

I saw an article that claimed that 56% of voters approve of Medicaire for all.

Most people are convinced that free lunches are possible, so long as the government provides them.

Reply to  MarkW
January 23, 2019 11:57 am

Those 56% are zero-liability voters. They don’t have to believe free lunches are possible. They simply have to believe it won’t cost them anything.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 23, 2019 11:54 am

Joel, I disagree. At some superficial level, the belief may be widespread, but a concern over it certainly isn’t. In public opinion polls, it doesn’t even register. Given the nonstop barrage of one-sided disinformation promoting the scam, I’d say folks BS detectors, by and large, are working just fine.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 23, 2019 3:01 pm

Joel O’Bryan – January 23, 2019 at 11:19 am

We are hardwire-programmed (via evolution’s natural selection) to believe stuff simply on faith based on Appeal to Authority arguments, especially if the claims fit pre-exisitng biases.

Hate to be picky, but, ……. “Nah”, ….. “We are nurtured by our environment (parents, guardians, peers, etc.) to believe stuff …… etc., etc.” ……… except that said “pre-existing biases” is nothing more than one person accusing another person of having a mental problem because of their disagreement(s).

January 23, 2019 10:55 am

They are as dumb as rocks.
It explains a lot.

Schrodinger's Cat
January 23, 2019 10:56 am

David Attenborough is a great natural world film maker and narrator. He feels passionate about the environment. He is not a climate scientist and obviously believes all the alarmist hype about global warming. Why would he not? Many people take on trust what they are told. At the age of 92, he is still a remarkable man.

Having said all of that, while I am sure that he feels strongly about global warming for the above reasons, I am very sure that his good name is being exploited by his employer, the BBC and no doubt many eco-activists who have access to him. Many of Attenborough’s excellent documentaries are spoiled by the obligatory global warming alarmism usually added at the end, obviously to satisfy the BBC obsession with saving the planet.

Like many here, I have lost some respect for him, but the pressure on him to cooperate must be huge and he is 92 years old.

Reply to  Schrodinger's Cat
January 23, 2019 12:22 pm

Agree, among his greatest achievements are also those as the BBC’s programs controller: History of Western Art, Bronowski’s Ascent of Man, Alister Cook’s America, etc.
Recently he left the BBC to work for Netflix.
Certainly man of great ability, a media genius despite his views regarding climate change and consequences that may follow.

Reply to  vukcevic
January 23, 2019 11:30 pm

This is rubbish, as is most of the theorising about natural selection.
(My BS detector smells a bad odour of eugenics & bad genetic science).

“Bronowski’s Ascent of Man” was just another load of bollox which developed the theory that man was always improving*, and we should look should look at our ancestors as primitive primates.
Attenborough has this bent from the beginning just like Jacques Cousteau.
Ie. Make money from alarmism of the disappearance of the species, then blame it on man.

It’s weird how the narrative is somehow so contradictory* that they have to fire Bellamy who has a brain, and air their agenda rich BBC crap instead.

January 23, 2019 11:06 am

Back in the days, and maybe still true today, there was just one question that determined if you were hired by the Big Brother Corporation. Are you a communist ?

I feel terribly sad to see Attenborough spout this nonsense in his old age, his documentaries are great, he shouldn’t meld in politics.

Reply to  Frantxi
January 23, 2019 11:14 am

His documentaries are fake. They always were.

Reply to  Roger
January 23, 2019 11:21 am

I’ll look into it. It would be great if you had a source to direct me to.

PS : I meant “meddle” in my previous comment.

Reply to  Frantxi
January 23, 2019 11:31 am

I guess I should have also said he made great science fiction. Indeed there has been so much proven fakery that everything in the “documentaries” can be questioned.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Frantxi
January 23, 2019 6:59 pm

I loved Attenborough as a young kid, but all his documentaries started to look identical and I lost interest. Many years ago I read a long document that spelled out all the tricks used in his documentaries.

To make a long story short; Attenborough and the film crew would scramble through a forest (sometimes not even the forest they said they were in) and film him searching around. Then they’d gather some insects and whatevers and film them in the studio where they had more time and could set up specific moments. Think of waiting for a trap door spider to come out of the nest in the forest. So yes, most of the films were faked. Even if the general science was mostly accurate.

Reply to  Roger
January 23, 2019 11:34 am

I’ve come across him twice, and I definitely don’t like his methods.

The first time was in the Okavango delta. We had booked rooms long in advance in a wildlife lodge, but when we got there we found that Attenborough was there, didn’t want tourists around, and had paid them to send us off to another less well situated lodge.

The second time was in the Galapagos where he had bribed the National Park Authorities to forbid any boats from going through the strait between Fernandina and Isabela because he didn’t want any boats in the background when he was filming in the “virgin wilderness”. So I never got to see the Galapagos Cormorant.

Reply to  tty
January 23, 2019 2:09 pm


Interesting use of BBC licence fee payers money – bribes.

I guess he didn’t become a BBC’s program controller without a bit of backstabbing either.

But he’s such a ‘nice’ gentle man, isn’t he.

Beware the smiling assassin.

January 23, 2019 11:08 am

The have unlimited clean energy in Star Trek, so why can’t we have it now?
And warp drive too.
Not a lot to ask!

Reply to  TDBraun
January 23, 2019 11:28 am

Beam me up

Reply to  TDBraun
January 23, 2019 12:36 pm

warp drive is leaving seams in space-time stuff.

the environmental damage and potential catastrophe is such that warp travel needs to be eliminated for all but the absolutely necessary (elites).

(Star Trekking is now dead, unless they come around and show that the folks that were claiming the warp drive travel issue was a made up ploy to control everyone else.)

Charles Nelson
January 23, 2019 11:21 am

Didn’t this demented old fart describe humans as a ‘plague’?

Reply to  Charles Nelson
January 23, 2019 8:47 pm

Yes he did in 2013, (“We are a plaque on Earth.”) As recently as October 2018, he said that “Population growth has to come to an end”. Seems he hates us all.

January 23, 2019 11:22 am

Could you be insinuating that for us to have access to unlimited clean energy will require more than just having the U. S. Federal Reserve and the other nations’ central banks conjure a bit more magic money out of their magic holes in the air so we can be able to use the magic money to pay for the limitless magical clean, sustainable energy
Gee whiz, If everyone can have ‘free’ quality healthcare, I don’t understand why we can’t have the same for energy. I mean, the laws of physics apply equally to all things and to all processes and systems.

Terry C
January 23, 2019 11:32 am

Okay. I’ll get a stick and wave it around while making various incantations. If I can get it to work, I’ll refrain from patenting it and donate it to the IPCC. Problem solved.

January 23, 2019 11:40 am

David Attenborough in re to his narratives about animals…”as if”

William Astley
January 23, 2019 11:52 am

The Left wing are clueless anarchists.

They believe they are on the side of good, when in reality they are on side of evil chaos.

Rather than travel to Climate Conferences in cushy places they should try living a few months in the long list of struggling countries that do not have 24/7 electric power.

How many hours/day per year has David Attenborough experienced without electric power?

Pakistan. Try living with a brown-out of 10 hours per day.


The current electricity shortfall has crossed the edge of 6000MW as country rural and urban areas are facing 14 and 10 hours electricity load-shedding respectively.

Nigeria. The leading cause of deafness in Nigeria is noise pollution from diesel generators. Every application that requires 24/7 electric power is powered from a diesel generator. There are for example 50,000 telecommunication towers in the country of 190 million people each of which has a 150 KVA diesel generator that runs 24/7.


Many households in rural areas only have electricity for an average of 2 hours a month. …

It is disheartening and disturbing to hear that only 78 out of a possible 140 turbines are functional in the nation’s 26 power plants. Also, Nigeria cannot provide sufficient gas to operate 23 of these power plants because they are running on simple cycle gas turbines. The government categorically states that Nigeria will not have adequate electricity for years to come, citing reasons that include the inadequate supply of gas and a lack of funding.

South Africa


Many power outages occur when the municipal distribution network is overloaded and trips, especially during periods of high electricity demand – like on a cold winter night.

Instead of proactive monitoring and maintenance of the infrastructure, poor management means that problems are only detected and fixed after a failure occurs.

Peter Plail
January 23, 2019 11:52 am

Whilst reading this thread I had a quick look at current UK generation data. We are currently importing more electricity from France and the Netherlands, than is being produced by wind (zero solar, of course as it is night). Fance 2GW, Neth 1.2GW, wind 2.9GW. For comparison, 6.4GW from coal and 25.9GW from gas of a total 48.5GW consumption.
We are constantly scolded for having a view on AGW because we are not qualified in the subject. A degree in natural sciences apparently qualifies you.
Whenever I hear his dulcet tones I switch off.

January 23, 2019 12:00 pm

“Presenters” was always a better description than the ones used in the US for folks in that job. Once upon a time most of the population here received our nightly news from 3 or 4 old men. We thought they were sages. Walter Cronkite was touted as “The Most Trusted Man In America”

That was always BS. We learned.

George Lawson
January 23, 2019 12:02 pm

I too have lost all faith in this man who has dedicated his life to the animal world. Who gave him a platform at the world leaders conference in Davos enabling him to spout his ridiculous views on the subject of climate change? He is not a climate scientist, and as far as I know has never publicly associated himself with the global warming brigade. Is it possible that he is being paid a fat fee by one or more Green charities for using his name and reputation to make such outrageously silly speeches

Reply to  George Lawson
January 23, 2019 12:54 pm

He isn’t stupid, perhaps paid lot of money for public speaking on ‘grand’ occasions, but what if he is subtly ridiculing the AGW by making outlandish statements kind of he made at Poland’s climate conference.

Chris Hanley
January 23, 2019 12:25 pm

“Global plan” sounds ominous.

John of Fabius
January 23, 2019 12:27 pm

Mr. Astley. If only the word “clueless” in your first sentence applied in all cases. Ah, wouldn’t it be pretty to think so.

kent beuchert
January 23, 2019 12:36 pm

Why do these people deny the reality of molten salt nuclear technology? We know it works and we now have designs (several) to make it practical and cheaper than any other power technology.
I think we can all get behind better energy generation technology. Apparently there are “experts” out there who are still looking for a revolutionary new energy tehnology. Hey, folks!! It’s here, you GD morons.

William Astley
Reply to  kent beuchert
January 23, 2019 3:28 pm

What we need to get the show going is a summary of the black hat issues concerning light water high pressure reactors and the gold hat results of having the new mass produce able, cheap as a coal plant to construct reactor.

60 percent of the population is absolutely terrified concerning nuclear power. Why? What is the reason for the light water reactor fuel rod melt downs, explosions, and radioactive releases?

The inherent safety problem in light water reactors is fuel rods and water.

US technology makes a naturally very, dangerous design less dangerous.

And our regulatory agency has spent 30 years talking about the faults and making rules to protect against the faults of the very dangerous design, when there is a fault-less alternative that we built and tested 50 years ago.

No the story is better. The designer and patent holder, of the dangerous reactor, told congress that that design was dangerous, and recommended that we switch to the molten salt reactor. and so on. the story…

The molten salt reactor is not safer, it does not have the catastrophic failure modes.

The molten salt reactor can be mass produced. The US light water reactor is constructed from 8-inch plate and can hence only be produced in one factory in the world. The light water reactor turbines are special constructed, long delivery, as they must handle the low temperature wet steam from the 315C reactor.

The Integral Molten Salt Reactor produces heat at 600C. The increase in temperature, from 315C, opens up more than two trillion dollars/year of industrial heat requirements.

This is a destructive, mostly super good, civilization engineering “breakthrough”.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  William Astley
January 24, 2019 1:35 am

Indeed. The major nuclear accidents have all been the result of steam or hydrogen explosions, the products respectively of water coolant and zirconium fuel cladding. Eliminate these two and you eliminate most of the risk. That and you can’t very well have a meltdown when the fuel is intended to be molten. If the fuel starts to overheat you drain it into a simple, strong holding tank. You can’t do that with solid fuel.

Walter Sobchak
January 23, 2019 12:50 pm

“David Attenborough Demands Unlimited Clean Energy at Davos”

And men in hell demand ice water.

But, do they get it?

Hell No.

Curious George
January 23, 2019 1:02 pm

And I demand a magic wand.

John the Econ
January 23, 2019 1:15 pm

That and $5 still won’t buy you anything at Starbucks.

January 23, 2019 1:29 pm

If unlimited clean energy is wanted, maybe David Attenborough could try the big wins first. China produces about 45% of the world’s coal production, yet is a net importer of the stuff. In December 2018 China produced 320.38 million tonnes of the stuff. From the BP Energy Outlook 2018, in the whole of 2017 the two biggest EU producers – Germany and Poland – managed to produce just 302 million tonnes. The combined annual production of the EU in a year is about 7 weeks production of China.
In 2017 China produced 3523 million tonnes. Nine other countries produced in excess of 100 million tonnes, and collectively produced 3437 million tonnes.
If climate activists wanted to genuinely reduce global emissions, maybe they should target China. Raising tariffs against China might be a start. President Trump is already taking a lead in this.

Reply to  Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter)
January 23, 2019 5:47 pm

“If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe that they will give permission to business and governments to get on with the practical solutions.”

The only practical solution is war against the two biggest CO2 emitters. Immediate and total destruction of China and India are indicated. You on board, Attenborough? Or are you really as clueless as you appear? I think you should have stopped speaking in public ten years ago. Your kids should take the microphone away from you.

January 23, 2019 1:41 pm

David Attenborough = large carbon footprint = hypocrite.
BBC = large carbon footprint = hypocrites.
Hey hypocrites, shut down you activities first.

January 23, 2019 1:48 pm

The only truly green energy is FOSSIL FUELS, aka superrenewable fuels, because once burned, the carbon dioxide makes more life, including wood and ethanol which can recycle forever.

Carbon dioxide remains the basis of photosynthesis, which is the basis of all terrestrial life.

No other fuels increase the carrying capacity of the Earth for Life. Fossil fuels (and natural ocean cycles?) have increased the leaf area by 40%, according to NASA satellite data reported on WUWT.

January 23, 2019 1:48 pm

Seems we should send a perpetual motion machine salesman to Davos.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 23, 2019 2:22 pm

Attenborough is one of the most precious of the BBC elite who are beyond reproach or criticism . When the public voted to call the latest Antarctic survey ship “Boaty MacBoatyface” by a large majority, the humour bypass government ignored the immensely creative public idea and asked Attenborough to have his name given to the new ship. Despite coming a distant fourth in the popular poll, Attenborough didn’t hestitate at this ego swelling opportunity. Well why would he when he views himself and his contributions on world affairs so important.

So now he wants more fish, and perhaps he meant a “pan”rather than a “plan” in his latest rambling nonsense.

January 23, 2019 2:33 pm

That’s to go with unlimited corp jet mileage and jet fuel consumption.

January 23, 2019 2:51 pm

Sir David , in the same pool as the sharks at Davos, what a strange situation.

The gnomes of Davos will only be interested in making even more money, a small thing like “Saving the Planet ” will be be more than a flicker in their minds. ” Sad that David after all of the good nature programmes of the past, has now joined the nutty Greens.
Regarding the practicable alternative such as Nuclear, I wish our readers would stop talking about “Fusion”. That will always be just around the corner, please send more funds. Instead lets stick with what already works. Fission.


January 23, 2019 3:27 pm

Those damned Republicans are hoarding all the dilithium crystals!

Patrick MJD
January 23, 2019 4:02 pm

In the 1970’s he stated there was an ice age on it’s way. I used to admire his documentaries but now they are all laden with climate change claptrap I turn off. And we now know he faked many scenes.

Rod Evans
January 23, 2019 4:06 pm

Ahh, David Attenborough. The BBC’s most projected shrill and favourite ancient communicator of propaganda.
He is famous for being famous and as a voice over of world class film sequences of natural wonders. His personal knowledge is not in doubt, it is well known for being about average.
His recent declaration that the people of Great Britain should not have been asked to decide whether they wished to stay in or leave the EU, because the people do not possess the necessary knowledge to make such a decision.
He advised, “those decisions should be left to the professionals who know best, particularly the politicians”.
I am sure he had Diane Abbott, David Lammy, Jeremy Corbyn, and John Macdonald in mind when he declared his faith in the wisdom of politicians.
The fact Attenborough has been rolled out twice in the past few weeks to present the case for Climate Change action, tells us the alarmists are now very concerned. Not concerned about the climate, though, oh no. They are concerned and have finally realised, the public do not believe their lies. The urgency being injected into the now daily demand for policies to reduce CO2 along with CO2 tax harmonisation programmes across the entire world, leads me to conclude they are panicking.
China has turned its back on the nonsense politics of the alarmists.

January 23, 2019 4:11 pm

Y’know that US guy, Bill Nye, the science guy.

Meet his UK brother.

Daryl M
January 23, 2019 4:12 pm

Here how the elitists who are there telling us what to do got to Davos:

Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk

More And Bigger Private Jets Landing at Davos as Leaders Discuss Climate Change

World leaders are flocking to Davos this week in private jets that are more lavish than ever

January 23, 2019 4:35 pm

It must be really hard to think the natural world is on the brink…even worse to think you’ve got ideas to save it, and nobody is listening.

January 23, 2019 4:45 pm

Heck, at Davos I’m sure they’re already getting unlimited shrimp cocktail, so unlimited energy is a snap!

January 23, 2019 6:45 pm

Damn those Engineers!!!!

Burn them!!!!


January 23, 2019 8:37 pm

A lifetime to create a reputation as a naturalist and TV presenter. A few short years to destroy it all by surrendering his mind to the green collective.

January 23, 2019 9:20 pm

Sad how old age destroys physical and mental acuity. It also creates an urgency to leave some kind of legacy; to say something important, remain relevant and not go gentle into that good night.

January 24, 2019 1:00 am

I wonder how they power the network of BBC transmitters?

DAB is power hungry & Digital TV requires denser infrastructure.
Analogue which they have been trying to turn off for decades,- FM stereo, Medium & long wave.
The BBC IT & Server farm.

Let those hypocrites power it all with wind farms and solar power and see how long the blabla & propaganda stays on air!

Ian Macdonald
January 24, 2019 1:20 am

The simple, hard fact is that clean energy funding goes mostly into wind and solar, with only peanuts to the likes of fusion, geothermal, hydro or LFTR. Expenditure on wind and solar over the last decade has exceeded $200 billion a year, and all we have to show for that is 0.9% of world energy transitioned. By simple arithmetic we have the choice of waiting a thousand years for the magic 100% clean energy, or else spending around $200 trillion to get the job done sooner.

$200 trillion is ten times the USA’s GDP.

These inconvenient facts are available on ourworldindata.org and a number of other reputable sites. They totally contradict the claims of the wind and solar lobby to the effect that these technologies are cheap to implement. They are not. They are ridiculously expensive.

Fusion may be difficult but I doubt if it is impossible. If the futile, pointless wind and solar projects were stopped and even just the the current world spend of $200 billion a year made available, how long would it take to perfect it? (ITER will cost less than a tenth of that)

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
January 24, 2019 4:49 pm

The challenge with fusion is twofold: mass and containment. The fuel load needs to be of sufficient mass to create a self-sustaining reaction, else you’ll never turn an energy profit. And it obviously needs to be kept stable and contained. But containment becomes harder as the mass of the fuel load increases.

Johann Wundersamer
January 24, 2019 4:12 am

must be a divine apparition, a god-like apparition, this David Attenborough:

speaks of itself in the “majestatis pluralis” “We” “can create a new world”:

The Blue Planet and Dynasties narrator said, “We can create a world with clean air and water, unlimited energy and fish stocks.”

We, the creator.

Bow to Attenborough!

January 25, 2019 5:59 am

Here’s their clean energy promise in a nutshell-
and for the first time South Australia fired up their political panic stations diesel generators to help out. Burning diesel trumps coal for their dreaded CO2 emissions apparently.

%d bloggers like this: