Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
MP John Redwood highlights some perverse behaviour by the BBC:
I was surprised to receive an email from the BBC after my interview on Monday of last week. It asked me to prove that German carbon dioxide emissions were twice as large as the UK’s, a claim I made in my interview. I was surprised because I would expect the BBC to know the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide as practically every BBC news show and comment show has to have a climate change item on it these days. I sent him back couple of sources that a simple google search yielded. I had of course checked my recollections of the numbers before doing the interview so I knew they were correct. He expressed no interest in my allegations about China which accounts for around 27 times as much CO2 output as the UK.
He returned to the issue having consulted someone else to point out that if you looked at consumption patterns rather than at where fuel was burned and things made the Uk would have a worse figure and Germany as a leading exporter of carbon dioxide drenched products would have a bit better figure by transferring some of their CO2 to the importing country. Germany would of course still be the larger emitter. I explained that I was talking about COP 26 and the global Treaty framework. The whole basis of the international conferences is to get countries to pledge to cut the CO2 that is generated on their territory, as that is more subject to their control. Surely the expression Germany’s CO2 output means just that, the CO2 they produce.
He agreed that the figures used were correct but felt he needed to write an additional essay about how perhaps we should use consumption based figures instead of the agreed international output based figures. I objected to this being done in the name of a fact check on what I had said when it was obvious I had cited accurate normal figures. Nonetheless the BBC fact check then posted a long essay which did begin by quoting another source to show my figures were accurate before going into a long apology for Germany and a representation of figures to cast Germany in a better light. Why? Why does Germany have to be protected when her business model includes digging out plenty of brown coal and burning it, and producing millions of fossil fuel burning vehicles. In contrast the UK has all but phased out coal from the mix. Why no mention of Germany’s rows over extending open cast coal mining, her refusal to eliminate coal this decade, and no mention of China, the world’s largest carbon dioxide producer?
It seems the BBC is determined to be right even when it is wrong!
The BBC’s “Factcheck” is here. As well as making a meal of the consumption issue, it also states:;
Curiously however, the report makes no mention whatsoever of the fact that Germany’s per capita emissions are 43% higher then the UK.
Of course, as Redwood correctly comments, the whole of the UN’s decarbonisation strategy revolves around the output of emissions by individual countries, not their consumption. If Germany or China want to carry on exporting their goods, they must do so in a low carbon fashion, just as our industries are being forced to.
The BBC now stands for the Bollocks Broadcasting Corporation.
Is that true? Or did you hear it on the BBC?
I thought it was Boy B****ering Communists..
Bolsheviks Bu@@37ing Children.
Now, now, Jimmy Saville was never a communist. However, I heard Rolf Harris was quite a hard line Trotskyist.
And the BBC lauded both of them, apparently without much “fact checking” being done at all.
When Johnny Rotten, lead singer of the Sex Pistols at the time, is a more reliable source of information on this topic than the BBC, then some stronger questions should have been asked.
British Broadcarping Castration.
Baghdad Bob Corporation
Ah, so that’s what happened to him. I thought he was picked up by CNN.
don’t you mean the Bullshit and Bullying Communists
bash britain coalition
I thought it was the British Brainwashing Corporation.
Goebels would be impressed by how the BBC conducts itself these days.
John Redwood might find this interpretation of Recent BP data useful
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2020-bp-data/
Reply and commiserations to edmh.
Did the people here even look at this recent BP data before voting it down .
I am sure it is the data that John Redwood used . Just because Griffy voted it down no need to vote it down when you see a red number .
And let’s not forget that Germany is pulling out from nuclear energy, so inevitably the CO2 output per capita will rather rise than drop in the future.
And they are burning more coal and much of it lignite.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/07/27/german-wind-power-consumption-plummets-20-in-first-half-2021-coal-power-consumption-jumps-38/
“German Wind Power Consumption Plummets 20% In First Half 2021… Coal Power Consumption Jumps 38%!“
True but that was their decision knowing fully well (I would hope?) that their emissions would rise accordingly. No need to make an excuse for a poor decision.
Plus Germany force surrounding nations to run coal fired power stations inefficiently to make up for there unreliable wind
If China produces 27 times more life-giving CO2 than the UK, shouldn’t China be commended for thier efforts to green the World?
Well, maybe, BUT most of their efforts are to Red the World!
Yep, greenies have an aversion to greening.
Hold that thought for when UK ministers are in Beijing to sign large trade deals and need brownie points to help suck up to the main world leaders.
Typo: “43% higher then the UK”
If we counted the emissions from the manufacture of goods sold in the UK (now predominantly from China) and added that to our ‘own’ CO2 emissions then our politicians might begin to understand that we need to rebuild manufacturing in the UK if we genuinely want to REDUCE global emissions.
If we did count it in that way then their “concern” over CO2 emissions might outweigh their lack of concern with the fact that “decarbonisation” is on track to destroy the UK economy and people’s living standards.
Speaking as a Brit living in the UK I can confirm that the BBC is pro-EU, institutionally socialist and anti-British.
Speaking as a Brit not living in the UK for 20 years, I can confirm this too.
Speaking as a Brit who’s lived in the EU and returned to the UK (nothing to do with Brexit) I can also confirm this.
I left the UK mainly because of the BBC.
They already turned out such guff under Thatcher, I realised I can’t lose by leaving the UK for good.
They then dumbed down the proms. OUCH!
When I tried to listen online, trying to force me to use their crappy I-player, about 6 months ago because they decided to crap on their expat listeners, and remove all mp3 streams.
Result:- I used to listen to world service, despite the auto-repeat button on “clinate change”, but don’t bother any more.
Classic fail?
BBC have been trying to force people without any success to cancel FM services and move to the horrible DAB for more than a decade.
ie.
Almost everything the BBC does is against the interests of British people that fund it, but they never consult, or even stonewall those that pay for it, yet the British go on with this “masturbation of the brain” organisation and appear to be true stoical masochists at heart.
If it were a proper company it would have gone bust decades ago, because it simply doesn’t produce a product people want to buy…
Btw.
Forced selling is by all consumer law illegal in the UK.
Correction, institutionally & intellectually socialist, they are true champagnes socialists, the socialism is for the little people who pay their huge salaries through a poll-tax called the Licence Fee!!!
Anti-Brit??? I thought the Brits publicly funded the BBC?
Sadly, yes.
good reason to defund all these now socialist government institutions to name a few
PBS in the US
BBC in the UK
ABC in Australia
NZBC in New Zealand
Im sure there are many more
Once these socialists are defunded we might get to see much better reporting from Journalists who can actually do research rather than repeat the Reuters News Wire BS
The stalinist broadcaster in NZ is RNZ.
Technically, no. Brits ‘choose’ to fund the Beeb by paying a ‘voluntary’ licence fee.
In actuality, they are forced to pay this fee if they have a device ‘capable’ of receiving BBC broadcasts. Proving that they do not is increasingly difficult, because even a phone can technically stream BBC content.
In the old days, as long as you’re tv was not tuned to BBC channels, you could avoid paying, as I did for many years.
In most other countries, the national broadcasting is paid for by taxes of some sort. In Italy, I pay an additional tax for it on my electricity bill, for example. Apparently I can try to get this removed, but dealing with Italian bureaucracy is a nightmare.
Germany is of course a producer of manufactured goods, Britain less so, that is why its per capita CO2 is higher.
And why Britain is producing less CO2 now than in 1870. Once Britain was the workshop of the world, our per capita CO2 production was immense, like Chinas today.
And of course when darling Greta says that the UK is responsible for its past emissions, and hence a large part of what has been put in the air, by the same argument used in this article, Greta can be dismissed, as it was the world which consumed British goods.
But of course the consumer is the one ultimately responsible, so rather than cut UK emissions, lets put a large tax on goods imported from China, dress it up as a CO2 tax, and use that to fund our solar and wind plants.
I thought most of the wind and solar crap came from China?
If you look at Ourworld in data the UK’s 19th century emmissions were not immense and totally unlike China’s today. The USA overtook the UK in 1887, Germany in 1935 and China in 1970. China’s total emmissions since 1800 far exceed the UK’s.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china#what-are-the-country-s-annual-co2-emissions
“But of course the consumer is the one ultimately responsible…”
The “consumer”, always the irresponsible, selfish consumer, the irresponsible, selfish citizen, the irresponsible, selfish people…
It is time to dismiss this people and appoint another…
Yes it’s “Society to blame” (channeling my Monty Python).
It is curious as to why Germany is being protected in this way. It is almost as if they are scripted to play a leading role in the NWO after the Great Reset.
Because Vincent, the human animal cannot lie.
It’s because UK folks, (those of the ‘male inclination’) like driving German cars and those of the female inclination appreciate the quality & reliability of German White Goods in their homes.
Thus, they are not ‘biting the hand that feeds‘ – especially as The Human Animal (unless it’s a Climate Scientist) does actually realise that there are No Free Lunches out there
It is Hypocrisy on Speed: = The New World Order
My German pressure washer broke – second time. Onlt biught it a couple of years ago. Spare parts cost more than the cost of a whole new one not from germany.
Same issue with a german dishwasher.
German engineering is mostly rubbish these days. I dont buy Bosch, I buy Makita. It lasts.
Leo,
My thoughts on Bosch are the same; no way!
Auto
I disagree. My meile dishwashers last about 15 years. My vacuum has lasted 10 years, and has had some serious work to do because of pets.
I might even consider a German car, although many manufacturers use German engines and have much better style, so I have my eye on one of them atm.
Someone said, “If you want German engineering, buy Swiss.”
That has a certain ring of truth about it – you’d hardly put the Italians ‘in charge’ of Westasia, would you?
European heaven: The police are British, the cooks are French, the bankers are German, and the lovers are Italian.
European hell: the police are French, the cooks are British, the bankers are Italian, and the lovers are German.
The Beeb is strongly pro-EU, Germany is the only net contributor left in the EU and in a very dominant position politically within the EU. If the Beeb allow criticism of Germany, it is allowing criticism of the EU and that would be unacceptable.
Why does the BBC do this? Asking the question is answering it.
But while Redwood is keen to point out Germany’s high per capita rate, he seems unwilling to point out China has a massively lower per capita rate…. about half that of the USA
Perhaps that’s why the UN does it by country
Griff, China’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita are 43% higher than Britain’s. In fact, China’s emissions per capita are only 12% lower than Germany’s and will soon overtake Germany as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Griff can’t be confused by the facts because he ignores them.
griff:
Are you denying the 97% consensus science that says:
per-capita emissions do not matter a jot; the climate crisis is solely caused by total CO2 emissions. Where CO2 is emitted does not matter either; it will eventually make its way everywhere.
In a system of national sovereignty, the UK cannot directly control what China does. A treaty framework does, assuming China agrees. The Paris Accord explicitly declines to require emissions reductions from China, India and other “developing nations”.
The UK and other nations could indirectly cause China to reduce CO2 emissions by reducing or eliminating imports of manufactured goods. But this means either consumers go without, or those manufacturing industries have to set up operations in the UK, which will cause the UK’s emissions to rise.
Clearly all the “developed” countries which have previously moved manufacturing to China need to move it back. The CO2 emitted during manufacturing will be the same regardless, but somewhat less CO2 will be emitted in the transportation.
Unfortunately, this is contrary to the Paris Accord, which all those same developed countries rushed to sign. The only thing that could reduce global emissions is prohibited by the very agreement allegedly designed to achieve those reductions. Brilliant idea, wot?
Actually, I think for all the money spent we could buy somewhat better government.
Maybe we should start paying them what they are worth, Alan. The tax savings would be huge.
Does it really matter who you slice the pie if you believe it is going to kill us all? Either China agrees to zero emissions by 2050 or anything the rest of the world does is for naught (same with India). Not that I beleive ANY major country will reach zero emissions by 2050.
I don’t care because I do not believe CO2 emissions cause all that much warming. But if you are a true believer then stop being hypocritical – all countries producing CO2 emissions need to reduce them together or every country can just deal with the consequences (which gets my vote).
if you are true believer then attached image shows you need to eliminate over 4.5 Billion people to allow renewables to have a chance
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9ACCotWEAQB5Ai?format=png&name=900×900
I dont want to put up my hand
Poor Griff. Our resident Black Knight strikes again.
The BBC is beyond redemption, it is a preachy, “woke”, left of Lenin, out of touch organisation that doesn’t represent the views of the people who pay for it.
I say it again…. DEFUND THE BBC!
Keep saying it.
I believe he works on GB News now.
As a significant portion of Australian CO2 emissions are from agriculture, which we export, all these emissions can now be allocated to the consumer nations.
Ditto for NZ.
After 18 months of lockdowns does NZ even have an economy any more? Seriously, lockdown for 1 case of COVID? What is with these people?
They need to protect all those dwarves and hobbits roaming around over their mountains.
Maybe…but your great coral reefs which has been repeatedly reported as dying or already dead was a carbon sink so now we get to charge you for the carbon it isn’t storing!
(Yes, this was sarcasm – I know the reefs are fine)
Probably partly due to coal use and Germans are none the worse for that.
Also Germans are wealthier than the British with a per cap annual income (PPP) in 2019 of 54,000 US dollars compared to UK 46,000 US dollars.
In most cases with few exceptions (e.g. Norway) the higher the per cap emissions the higher the standard of living and vice-versa.
Look, guys, it’s perfectly simple. Germany ‘s energienwende expenditure on windmills is simply massive and held up by the BBC as an example to the UK. That it should not check CO2 production is a DISASTER for Boris’s windmill ideas and the BBC’s campaigning. Therefore the information has to be suppressed or challenged.
If Germany or China want to carry on exporting their goods, they must do so in a low carbon fashion, just as our industries are being forced to.
In Germany’s case, they are not being encouraged to do so. They pay at a vastly lower rate for their electricity and gas than the poor German domestic consumer.
Fact Checking The BBCFact Checking The Propaganda Bureau.
Good luck with that, The GWPF and Mr Homewood have been protesting the egregious errors in BBC reporting and haven’t got anywhere.
My favourite all time BBC cock-up has to be when Guy Goma went for an interview for a job at the BBC and was mistaken for technology expert Guy Kewney.
The fun starts 40 seconds in…
Guy goma – YouTube
And no, it wasn’t the last time this sort of thing happened.
That ‘wrong Guy’ interview is hilarious
Once again, you’re being dragged into the mud by the pigs for another wrestling match.
“Emissions” Don’t Matter
“Emissions” Don’t Drive Atmospheric CO2 Levels
Atmospheric CO2 Does Not Drive The Climate
All the whining about CO2 “emissions” from whatever country and how “emissions” should be “accounted for” and who needs to reduce “emissions” or who needs to be taxed to account for their “emissions” and whether total “emissions” or per capita “emissions” matter is nothing but a distraction from the man-behind-the-curtain bullshit that supposedly makes this discussion of “emissions” important in the first place.
There is no “climate crisis” nor any human induced “climate change” that can be measured.
Arguing about “emissions” is as meaningful as arguing about which screen doors would perform best on a spaceship.
Some of us are old enough to remember a time when oppressed people all over the world would huddle round short wave radios to listen to the BBC overseas news in their own languages, because it was the only source of near-objective truth that they had access to.
Now it’s the Britain-Bashing Collective. Truth is an outdated social construct.
I haven’t paid the telly tax for well over a decade. Defund the BBC.
I’ve never paid it. Gave up having a tv in 1990 anyway.
The champagne lefties of the BBC see the License Fee as a trough in which they can gorge themselves.
So fact checking at the BBC has morphed into agenda maintenance argumentation and other departures from reality and the job of fact checking. What a con job for the viewers.
odd “subscription fault” again. Maybe I can subscribe by commenting…
The BBC, like most leftists in the UK, wants to find reasons to loathe the UK. By attempting to take their determined hate away with facts, you were simply ruffling their feathers. You are supposed to find fault with the UK, not defend it, you silly.
They are Stalinists. Just to ignorant of history to know it.