What Harrabin’s Analysis Does Not Tell You

By Paul Homewood

 

I mentioned Matt McGrath’s contribution to factual broadcasting earlier:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50799905

 

It contained within it this so called “Analysis” by Roger Harrabin:

 

 

Both Harrabin and McGrath frequently include this sort of “Analysis” within the BBC’s news reporting. The title suggests that it is some sort of objective examination of facts surrounding a certain situation.

More often than not, it is nothing of the sort. In this instance, it is nothing more than a reflection of Mr Harrabin’s own personal opinions and prejudices.

 

Let’s look at it closely:

He’s already been warned by environmentalists that he will be "humiliated"

Harrabin uses phrases like these to suggest this is an authoritative and factual assessment. In reality it is merely the views of a few of his chums from within his bubble of extreme alarmists.

if he tries to lead other nations whilst the UK is still failing to meet its own medium-term climate targets.

This is deliberately intended to give the impression that the UK is falling woefully behind other countries’ efforts to reduce emissions.

This is an outright lie

Since the Climate Change Act in 2008. UK emissions of carbon dioxide have fallen by 30%. For the rest of the EU, the figure is under 16%, while in N America it is just 8%.

Globally, emissions have risen by 11% in that time.

As for those “medium term plans”, surely he must know that Germany is still planning to keep coal power going well into the 2030s, and will be reliant on Russian gas for much longer still.

 

The UK’s climate advisers warn that tens of millions of homes must be insulated..

The Committee on Climate Change have recommended this, but have not told us the cost, which by all estimates is likely to be crippling and certainly not worth the energy savings.

For Harrabin to suggest that the failure to “insulate” houses is somehow remiss of the government is not objective reporting, but just political bias.

Other experts say Mr Johnson’s £28.8bn road-building plans are not compatible with eliminating CO2 emissions

And? Is Harrabin suggesting that the British economy grinds to a halt on the back of his personal obsession with climate change?

Either way, it is not his job to assess the country’s need for new road building.

 They say even fully electric cars won’t solve the problem completely – and urge the government to help people walk and cycle to benefit their health and the environment

At least he is honest enough to admit that we will have to give up our cars.

 

They also say expanding aviation will increase emissions.

Perhaps he would like to tell us “they” are!

But even “they” cannot deny that the UK can do nothing at all about international air travel. For instance, if we abandon the third runway at Heathrow, which is clearly being implied, the extra traffic will simply end up in Frankfurt or Schiphol.

 

Mr Johnson’s Brexit decisions will play a part too. The US won’t discuss climate change in any trade deal. Meanwhile the EU is putting a border tax on countries that don’t cut greenhouse gases. It will be impossible to please both.

Not for the first time, Harrabin is involving himself in party political matters.

For a start, it is not true that the EU is “putting a border tax on countries that don’t cut greenhouse gases”, though it has been discussed in theory. If they did, there would be an almighty trade war with China, where there would be only be one winner, and that would not be Europe. It would also result in massively increased prices for European consumers, which would probably lead to civil insurrection, Gilets Jaune style.

It is also not clear where the US fits in, as they have been cutting GHGs in recent years.

This whole paragraph reveals Harrabin’s anti Brexit and anti Trump agenda.

 

It is clear that this whole section, misleadingly titled “Analysis”, is nothing more than the political prejudice of Roger Harrabin and a few of his like minded chums. It certainly has no relation to objective and accurate journalism.

Worse still, he uses the views of “environmentalists” to hide the fact that he is really just presenting his own opinions.

FOOTNOTE

As we have seen, Harrabin claims that Boris will be “humiliated” while the UK is failing to meet its own targets.

Maybe Mr Harrabin would like to consider that Spain, which has just hosted the latest summit, has only managed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions since 2008 by 17%.

France, which hosted the Paris summit, has done slightly better with a reduction of 21%.

As already mentioned, UK emissions have fallen by 30% since 2008.

But you won’t see any of those facts in Harrabin’s “Analyses” .