April 08, 2024
On March 28, President Mohamed Irfaan Ali of the South American country of Guyana became an instant hero to many as he refused to take lectures on climate change from a BBC reporter during an interview. In a two-minute video clip that went viral on X (formerly Twitter) and other social media, President Ali turned the tables on the BBC’s Stephen Sackur when the reporter accused Guyana of worsening the “climate crisis” by allowing the exploitation of its newly found oil and gas reserves.
“Over the next decade or two, it’s expected that there will be $150 billion worth of oil and gas extracted off your coast,” Sackur told the president. “It’s an extraordinary figure. But think of it in practical terms. That means – according to many experts – two billion tons of carbon emissions will come from your seabed from those reserves and released into the atmosphere.” Guyana’s head of state quickly rebutted: “Let me stop you right there. Did you know that Guyana has a forest that is the size of England and Scotland combined, a forest that stores 19.5 gigatons of carbon, a forest that we have kept alive?”
When the reporter asked President Ali whether the rainforest gave him the “right” to release the carbon, the Guyanese leader retorted: “Does that give you the right to lecture us on climate change? I’m going to lecture you on climate change.” Being lectured by the BBC on climate change is not a new development; it’s what the state-supported media service often does, and in hectoring tones. But is the BBC correct in its proclamations about what the “climate science” says?
Climate Alarmists and Their Detractors
The BBC seems institutionally committed to an alarmist position in its coverage of climate change issues. Many BBC programs seem driven to inject the “climate catastrophe” narrative into every energy-related news item. Stephen Sakur’s pointed remarks to Guyana’s president on the country’s rapid emergence as an oil and gas exporter were unexceptional in this regard.
The response on social media to the viral clip is telling. Here is a short selection from X on March 29 and 30:
Chris Rose (over 130,000 followers): “This is magnificent to watch. The President of Guyana truly put the BBC in its place. When sanctimony and pomposity meets [sic] sense and modesty.”
Simon Ateba (over 670,000 followers): “EXPLOSIVE: President Mohamed Irfaan Ali (@presidentaligy) of Guyana obliterates @BBC journalist Stephen Sackur (@stephensackur) over climate change hypocrisy. ‘No, no, I’m not done yet!’ WATCH.”
Dilly Hussain (over 110,000 followers): “LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE!” An absolute masterclass shutdown by President Mohamed Irfaan Ali of Guyana when probed by @BBCHARDtalk’s Stephen Sackur on his country’s new found oil and gas fields and the West’s concerns about “carbon emissions”.
Visegrád 24 (over 970,000 followers): “I am going to lecture you on climate change,” says Guyana President @presidentaligy to BBC journalist Stephen Sackur, as he pushes back against the journalist attempting to lecture the Caribbean leader about oil being bad for the environment.”
The headlines of leading newspapers on March 30 reflected these social media messages:
The Telegraph: “Watch: Guyana’s president scolds BBC presenter for climate change ‘lecture.’”
Times of India: “‘Are you in their pockets?’: Guyanese President calls out reporter for Western hypocrisy.”
Fox News: “Video of Guyana’s president snapping back at BBC reporter’s climate quiz goes viral: ‘Let me stop you.’”
Hypocrisy As the Default Option in Climate Change Narratives
What is of interest here is the inherently hypocritical nature of the interactions between representatives of developed countries and those of developing ones concerning energy and climate policies. Some of the most apparent of such interactions occur during the UN’s annual COP (“Conference of Parties”) climate summits.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, never one to shy from hyperbolic pronouncements, warns of a “code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.” Indeed, based on dubious “hockey-stick” global-warming models formulated in the West, the secretary-general proclaims the approach of the “era of global boiling.”
At COP26, held in 2021 in Glasgow, Western leaders addressed those making up 80% of humanity in speeches that reeked of carbon imperialism (here, here, and here). Their message can be fairly summarized as follows:
We pledge climate finance to help you. There are promising new energy technologies to achieve our goals of net zero by 2050. The outlook for new jobs and economic growth are limitless with solar and wind power, electric vehicles, green hydrogen and carbon capture and sequestration. However, we must stop all new fossil fuel investments now! You must give up fossil fuels or else the planet is doomed.
Faced with the increasingly untenable hypocrisy of the Western elites discouraging fossil fuel use in the developing world, the pushback by leaders such as Guyana’s President Ali is no surprise. In 2015, the Indian government’s then-chief economic adviser Arvind Subramaniam spoke in no uncertain terms of a new carbon imperialism: “The rich world’s move against fossil fuels is a disaster for India, and other poorer countries.”
In the lead-up to COP27 held in Sharm Al Sheikh, Egypt in 2022, Africa’s top energy official, Amani Abou-Zeid, the African Union Commissioner for Infrastructure and Energy, said that African countries will push for “a common energy position that sees fossil fuels as necessary to expanding economies and electricity access.”
At the COP28 climate summit held in Dubai, UAE, Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, president of the summit and CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, rebutted questions from Mary Robinson, a former UN special envoy for climate change: “There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5 C [maximum global temperature increase].” In an interview, he said that “You’re asking for a phase-out of fossil fuels . . . Please, help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socio-economic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”
URL: Cartoons by Josh
That’s Enough Already!
Germany, the world leader in green energy ambitions, provides the best lesson of untenable hypocrisy when faced with the real-world constraints of physics and economics. In 2022, the country faced the prospect of entering winter without adequate energy supplies. It had shut down its nuclear power plants and lost access to piped Russian natural gas by imposing sanctions against Moscow (which was then followed by the sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline). In this context, Germany quickly retreated to coal power generation, and it now plans to double its gas-fired power-generating capacity.
According to Doomberg, an energy and finance consultancy, Germany moved back to coal “with the speed and efficiency of the British evacuation of Dunkirk.” The IEA, the institution most responsible for the West’s clarion calls to stop fossil fuel investments, noted that Germany’s “significant reversal” drove European coal consumption up 9% in 2022. Energy security and the need to heat homes and keep lights on and factories humming trumped virtue-signaling climate goals – and Germany’s abject hypocrisy is obvious to many leaders in the developing world.
Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali has little to explain, much less apologize for, as his country rapidly emerges as an important South American exporter of hydrocarbons. Let the BBC’s reporters peddle their luxury beliefs to those who think they can afford them.
Dr. Tilak K. Doshi is an energy economist, independent consultant, and a Forbes contributor based in London.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
There are several programmes on BBC radio and television which you can guarantee 100% will mention “climate change” several times. I suspect the presenters get a bonus for each time the words are uttered.
I try not to watch or listen to these programmes. Not always easy.
I caught Justin Rowlatt’s report on the Swiss Women’s climate change action victory. He couldn’t hide his elation at the result. Just another part of the BBC cesspit of hypocrisy.
I no longer watch the BBC, but sometimes I happen to listen to Radio 4.
I don’t have control of the remote and so sometimes I hear stuff I’d rather not. I grew up without TV until I was in my 20s and even now I tend to listen to TV while doing something else. BBC Radio used to be a wonderful source of knowledge and entertainment.
Did the Swiss government even send in their lawyer? How elso could the Golden Girls win their case? There’s no damages, and there is no way anything the Swiss government could have done, even to the point of ordering the complete close of gas stations, power plants, all airports and so on – in fact they could have deported the entire population to somewhere else, and the Swiss emission reductions would have meant didly squat to the summer temperatures.
I think it is called ‘climate bingo’.
The reporter who says climate the most often in a month get the largest bonus.
Many NPR stations are the same way.
I believe Trump made a critical comment about NPR recently. If he wins in November, NPR’s federal govt funding could be in trouble unless the Dems have control of Congress after the election.
It takes a lot of propaganda to protect democracy.
BBC – NPR One and the same
Tax-payer-funded extreme-left propaganda machine.
Defund the BBC!
On another newspaper’s site, I commented on a slightly different matter – “97% of scientists agree on climate change” with a reference to work on this website rebutting that claim. I received a response that stated:
“That site is probably funded by big oil; you need to use a reliable source such as the BBC”
Hmmm
Notice the use of the word probably meaning they know itt isn’t but want an easy way of discrediting what you’ve said.
Almost 100% of scientists agree there is a greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions add to it (aka AGW)
97% is understated if it was intended to mean AGW
There is a 59% consensus that CAGW is coming, per a 2022 poll of scientists.
97% is overstated if it intended to mean CAGW, and that is exactly what 97% IS intended to mean
The “97% surveys” ask about AGW beliefs but present their results as CAGW beliefs.
About 175 of 195 nations could nit care less about CO2, Before late 2023 they kept quiet, probably hoping to get some free green slush fund money. Then a few leaders started speaking up. That’s a good start.
The next step takes more courage
Leaders must explain the past 48 years of ACTUAL global warming harmed no one.
No one knows how much of the warming after 1975 had natural causes. I wild guess 1/3. Some Nutters here guess 100%.
But it’s okay to assume a worst case that all the post-1975 warming was caused by CO2 … Was that 48 years of warming a climate emergency?
No.
It was pleasant warming and Earth is greening.
So why would another 48 years of CO2 increases and warming reverse from being pleasant to being a climate emergency?
More CO2 and more warming are both good news for our planet.
That’s what I would like to hear from any national leader.
It’s called the truth
The only sure antidote for predictions of climate change doom (since the 1979 Charney Report) is the actual climate change since 1979.
With many billions of first han witnesses.
Predictions: Global warming doom
vs.
Reality: Pleasant global warming
The coming global warming emergency fantasy is merely a prediction that has been wrong since 1979. That’s a lot of wrong
Why this “nutter” says CO2 does not cause warming. Q = Cp * m * dT
The mass of the atmosphere increases by some 35 giga tonnes of CO2 every year. We are ensured that input (Q) is constant so any increase in mass requires that dT decrease unless Cp is shown to decrease by an offsetting amount and the Cp of air has not been updated.
Water vapor and CO2 mass Cp combination are the 2 highest of the atmospheric gases so their addition always causes cooling.
CO2 has an emissivity of near zero at atmospheric temperatures and present partial pressure so it has no impact on energy imbalance.
I have posted the emissivity graph here several times. I have posted the Cp table several times if you think the graphs are wrong please inform us of what emissivity and Cp you would use.
As a retired naval officer who had nuclear weapons drop clearance I have been checked several times and I can assure you I am no nutter.
It was certainly a wonderful thing to watch 🙂
Jimmy Savile wasn’t innocent
Neither is auntie
The BBC will continue to broadcast its false climate change until someone sits David Attenborough down and shows him up to be the charlatan he is. His voice over of the tumbling walrus scenes off a cliff in Siberia was proof positive the BBC has an agenda completely devoid of truth or science.
Monbiot is another character that has a cohort of followers who regard his output of nonsense as gospel. His acts of petty vandalism on XR rallies or JSO get togethers is evidence of either blind faith in anarchic ideas, or he is a funded propagandist for the globalists agenda.
Either way he needs to be given the opportunity to explain in a question and answer session with a real scientist, why he thinks normal variation and well documented climate cycles are caused/influenced by man made recycling of CO2?
As long as claiming/crying climate change pays the bills, BBC has no need or impetus to claim otherwise.
From memory, about 7 years ago in an unguarded moment, Sir David spoke of how one of his photographers mentioned global warming to him and got him marginally interested. His wisdom has grown remarkably in the intervening few years. Geoff S
I liked this piece in the Telegraph re the ECHR .https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/international-left-wing-elites-crushing-democracy/
The part that I could speed read appeared good.
The BBC led with the story of the ‘win’ by the Swiss ladies on climate.
All bbc platforms led with this story.
With everything going on in the world its choice of lead story is surprising! Not.
Just look at the coverage the BBC chose to give to the unrest on the streets of London the other night courtesy of large crowds of Muslims. I guess the BBC just couldn’t find a plausible way of associating this unrest with the ‘far right’ bogeymen…
They have been convinced by higher powers that media coverage on those “unrest” situations will cause even more “unrest”. For better or worse is not in the control of the reader.
I predict it won’t be long for “complainers” to be lectured on the benefits of euthanasia to reduce their “carbon” emissions.
“The BBC seems institutionally committed to an alarmist position in its coverage of climate change issues.”
The BBC is institutionally, climate alarmist.
I don’t defend the BBC, but to be fair the Government has forbidden the BBC to broadcast any content about climate change with a penalty of instant dismissal unless it attributes it to CAGW, but the BBC didn’t have the guts to defy the Government.
Lord Reith would have been appalled.
I’m not sure he would. He was an admirer of Nazi Germany and Hitler, a womaniser who had many affairs with younger women. Very much a hypocrite so may well be admiring the BBC from his current location
Names may change but the grifts and hypocrisy remain the same.
I don’t necessarily doubt it, but what is the evidence for your assertion?
Reith’s daughter wrote a book about her father. This is a synopsis from Amazon.
This is the extraordinary story of a remarkable man. Lord Reith built the worldwide institution that is the British Broadcasting Corporation. His remarkable life was tension-filled, from the frontline of the First World War, to the corridors of Broadcasting House, titanic clashes with Winston Churchill to the abdication of a king. Along the way, he was also High Commissioner to the General Assembly. Reith’s daughter, Marista Leishman, reveals the truth behind the legend in this highly acclaimed book.
Not mmentioned are his affairs with women the age of his children and grandchildren.
I checked up on the comparison of the president. The Mercator Map projection is misleading making England and Scotland look larger than Guyana but in fact the land area is approximately the same. Good for him to expose the BBC.
try: thetruesize dot com
It wasn’t an interview. It was an attempted inquisition/interrogation with the “interrogator” continually attempting to interrupt the accused when the accused was making his points which refuted the interrogators accusations of his guilt.
Where did this interview take place? Just wondering if Sackur had to travel to Guyana, and if so what mode of transport he took.
“Is that true, or did you hear it from the BBC?”
In the 1990s I had an engineering manager in the US for a temporary assignment from England. He often used that BBC line on US engineers. They would later ask me what it meant. I would tell them Ken thinks you were trying to BS him, which must be a BBC specialty.
If I weren’t so old, I would consider migrating (legally) to Guyana.
Finding a place with democracy and basic sensibilities is growing more and more difficult.
😎
I understand. But I have kids here in the US so I’ll continue here.
(Main weapon being the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It changed me.)
The BBC and Canada’s CBC seem to be cut from the same cloth since neither one misses an opportunity to include a climate crisis narrative into its daily programming. But trying to hear a news item that points out the benefits of fossil fuels or that questions or refutes any of the alarmism is as likely as finding another William Shakespeare in a middle school remedial reading class.
Dr Doshi hit the ‘Gang Nail’ (they go by other names) on the head. It is so great to see countries like Guyana take a lead in the fight back. That fightback is good for us all. More power to Guyana and any country that wants to join them!