BBC’s Lies About India’s Climate Plan
By Paul Homewood
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34424930
It did not take long for the BBC to send out its propaganda army to pretend that India’s climate plan is something it is not.
India, the world’s third largest carbon emitter, has pledged to the UN to reduce the rate by which its greenhouse gas emissions increase by up to 35% by 2030, compared with 2005.
An utterly meaningless statement. Nowhere do they mention that this “pledge” effectively will leading to a trebling of emissions from today’s level, never mind 2005.
It says it aims to generate 40% of electricity from non-fossil fuel sources
Totally wrong. What the plan promises is that 40% of electric power installed capacity will be from non-fossil fuel sources.
Given the woefully poor efficiency of wind and solar power, the contribution to total electric generation from non-fossil fuels is likely to be less than 30%.
It says it aims to generate 40% of electricity from non-fossil fuel sources, mainly solar and wind.
Again, another outright lie. the vast majority of this contribution from non-fossil fuels will come from nuclear. Wind and solar contribution to total generation has been estimated to no better than 12%.
This is where its pledge differs from those made by the top two emitters, China and the US.
Beijing has announced that its carbon emissions will peak before starting to drop by 2030. The US has said it will make a reduction by up to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025.
In simple terms, China and the US have committed themselves to cutting down their total emissions within specified dates while India has not.
Yet another outrageous lie! This is what China has agreed:
China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/obama-pwned/
There is no commitment to reduce emissions after they have peaked, even if this is sooner than 2030. In particular, there is certainly no pledge to cut emissions from current levels, which is what the BBC has implied, nor even a specific level of emissions that they might peak at.
What is it about the BBC’s environmental correspondents that makes their reporting so woefully poor?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“What is it about the BBC’s environmental correspondents that makes their reporting so woefully poor?”
Their need to comply with the 28-gate diktat?
No question mark needed, they are activists not journalists, and barely make any attempt to hide that fact.
It’s mainly because they don’t have the intellectual capacity. They were chosen from a very shallow gene pool where pro lefty views were considered the predominant quality for employment. Harriban is the prime example.
“What is it about the BBC’s environmental correspondents that makes their reporting so woefully poor?” They do not need to have any qualifications or ability to become an environmental correspondent. Once in the job they have to follow the BBC agenda regardless, otherwise they get their P45s.
“What is it about the BBC’s environmental correspondents that makes their reporting so woefully poor?”
The short answer is that their fingers are on the keyboard.
Actually, “environmental” courses have precious little to do with the actual environment. They lack substance, but deal with “mitigation” and basically how to effectively raise a ruckus. Students are not taking basic botany/zoology or ecology courses. They only know the “party line”. Today, most of the organismal courses, if even given, are trending heavily towards circumnavigating actual study in favor of the “climate change” garbage.
Organismal botany and zoology courses are increasingly pushed out of university curricula by med schools demanding all slots be awarded to cellular/molecular biology courses. These courses also bring in lots of grant monies which have large overheads given to the institution for “administering” them. So universities are cutting out the organismal courses which don’t bring in such lucrative grants in favor of those obtaining big bucks grants and cushy overheads. That accounts for the bloated administrations with” vice-presidents of nothing at all” and “deans of nothing in particular” making huge salaries.
My late father, a chemistry professor, used to say that the purpose of a bureaucracy was to grow and perpetuate itself. I learned a lot from daddy.
The Indians copied the Mexican method. It’s very slick, and allows the propaganda organs to distort their real intentions. My advice to other nations is to use the method outlined by the republic of Waziria’s President Obombo.
What is it about the BBC’s environmental correspondents that makes their reporting so woefully poor?
It’s because they know that most of their audience are confirmed eco-warriors who will lap up any old rubbish that’s put before them. They also know that any sceptics who try to point out the error of their ways will be ignored or worse.
Today Aunty’s Matt McGrath reports: “India, the last big emitter to publish its contribution, said it would need $2.5 trillion to meet its targets.”
Strange that that minor fact was omitted from the Beeb’s report.