BBC’s Justin Rowlatt Loses It
November 1, 2021
By Paul Homewood
The BBC’s Justin Rowlatt completely loses it over the Cumbria coal mine:
This kind of belligerent hectoring is totally unacceptable from our supposedly impartial national broadcaster. It proves that the BBC is now simply a lobbyist for draconian climate alarmism, and is not interested in the facts or any sort of balanced debate.
As we know, the Cumbria coal mine will produce coal for ironmaking, not power generation. As such, it will have to be imported, involving much greater emissions, if the mine does not go ahead.
And as Boris points out, the decision is one for local planners, not central government.
38 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“Answering the coal question”….. “not taken seriously by the Chinese” who have how many coal mines providing coal specifically for power generation if we open ONE coal mine in England specifically for Steel production. If the Chinese brought that up and I was on the other side of the table I would laugh them out of the room because I would know they are playing our marxist/facist activists.
This whole “coal” conversation Fails . . . We have the technology to remove 97% of the effluent from these Coal Burning facilities.
Scrubbers in the smokestacks. Electrostatic precipitators that remove 99% of solid particles from the flue gases. Special burners to remove Nitrogen Oxide.
A “Titan Pro-Ash facility” can recycle water from the scrubbers and make synthetic gypsum board (drywall) and eliminate the need for a tailings pond.
All of this technology has been in use around the world for 40 years . . .
Environmentalists DO NOT advocate these “clean Energy” solutions . . . Why not ??
All of these solutions have been installed at Belldune New Brunswick Canada.
Solutions . . . Solutions . . . NOT PROPAGANDA . . . A New World Order . . .
That’s Rowlatt’s OBE gone. What an egotistical twat (apply to either or both of them)
This sort of interviewing is beyond unacceptable. Who the f”” does Justin Rowlatt actually think he is? I have personally put in a formal complaint to the BBC and I recommend everyone else does right now.
Kay Burley did exactly the same to Rishi Sunak on Sky News last week, constantly screeching over the Chancellor as he tried to answer her questions. What happened to good, probing questions?
You heard it here folks. The Cumbria coal mine if not a matter for central Government but one for local planning authorities. Lets see how that pans out.
Johnson just does NOT want to be seen making a decision before the COP is over. He’d far better prefer someone else to take the decision so that, if necessary, he can override it to show his tough, green credentials.
Everyone should raise an official complaint
I’ll just repeat the story of the (female) XR activist I heard being interviewed on R4 some time ago when it was all kicking off.
She was asked, if I had here in my hand a switch that could activate some newly developed technology which would remove all CO2 emissions from the air, would you press the switch?
‘No’, said the activist.
My bet is that Rowlatt’s answer would be the same. He and his ilk need the climate crisis like most people need oxygen. His is not a Green dream – more Red, I figure.
Would be nice if BBC interviewers employed a little bit more brain power to their questioning and a bit less over excited interrupting. Also, to treat the Prime Minister of our country with a bit more respect.
It’s dishonest to continue to export our awkward manufacturing decisions abroad. If we need it and can produce it in the UK we should do so.
The people who care about the planet are very often quite obnoxious personalities. Even if you try to debate with them they just shout.
Objectivity and reality are abandoned, there is a crisis and the crisis is caused by them.
Rowlatt continues the stance of all BBC interviewers I have seen and heard. Remember when John Kerry challenged us about the Cumbrian coal mine? He said it would damage our stance before COP26. He was not challenged as some correspondents above have done, nor did the BBC interviewer point out that the USA producers something like 1 million tonnes of coking coal a year and they might just want to sell us some. So he was pleading his own case, not worrying about ours. What is better? Dig up your own or buy it from overseas? Even if they came out of the ground at the same price, bringing it to the UK will incur huge CO2 production.
None of this will impress the BBC. They are only interested in two things 1. image, and 2. attacking the Government. Time to review the licence fee, perhaps…
Par for the course behaviour for the Beeb I’m afraid. They no longer seem to hire and promote impartial, inquisitive investigative journalists just activist lackeys. Heard a snippet of the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 earlier discussing Crap26 led by chief activist choirboy, Comrade Hairbrain, with an ‘independent’ panel of 10 listeners, every single one of whom appeared to signed up to the doomster cult. Not a skeptical voice to be heard. Fancy that? If Goebells were still alive he would be in his element running the Beeb’s ‘nudge nudge’ climate catastrophe unit. The time for defunding and breaking up the BBC is long overdue.
What a ridiculous fellow is Rowrat. Makes himself look more of a fool than the interviewee.
What an unpleasant, disrespectful, ignorant and bigoted moron he is. His body language and attitude screams megalomania and mental illness.
BBC = turd burglars the lot of them
Paul you may be amused to note that the BBC has initiated an ALL NEW(!) 10 point impartiality plan .
How funny I always thought they were supposed to be an impartial broadcaster, giving unemotional and disinterested reports of the news and current affairs. Instead we get over-emotional ‘journalism’ that ‘frames’ stories with near truth and lies about some news items, in order to further their political advocacy.
From https://order-order.com/2021/11/01/bbc-unveils-new-10-point-impartiality-plan/
What is COP26 doing about the billion without electricity? The cruel selfish bastarfs
This is why i no longer listen or watch BBC or the MSM.
His sister is one of the Extinction Rebellion / Insulate Britain mob
It never ceases to amaze me that so many intelligent people (including friends and relations) think that Greta Thunbergs pronouncements are worthy of any attention
Greta has NO RELEVANT education on the subject . . . She is an unhinged mouthpiece for what has become religious Dogma that ‘CO2 will destroy the world’.
Today, The Earth’s cycles are at the same point as when the Vikings first moved to Greenland Verification is easy . . . We must learn to look back and compare . . .
A scientific imperative . . .
The Politics of Human caused Global Warming and Climate Change causation, it seems, cannot, or will not stop. Re-examining new data, no matter how relevant, will not happen, easily. Climate Change and Global Warming have become Pseudo Religions that choose NOT to doubt the Current Narrative no matter how well founded or legitimate the findings are. Scientific Research counter to the central thesis that humans are responsible for Global Warming, linked to fossil fuels and CO2 . . . shall not be considered . . . Case Closed . . . Maybe Not . . . IF we ALL speak up . . .
That is not science . . . that is politics. So much evidence to the contrary is available at every turn . . .
Time to take another look!
The Archbishop of Canterbury lost it as well. Now there is someone who made a career out of believing there were fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Pity the C of E didn’t safeguard vulnerable children from the paedophiles hiding in plain sight in their midst, some paedophiles were even protected by the C of E to preserve its reputation. What a Dick he is.
The Archbishop is a Christian man but uneducated in science. Many on line are uneducated about religions not only Christianity to the same extent. The pronouncement about fairies would suggest a similar lack here in this commenter . If the archbishop doesn’t know the scientific method ‘others’ know no history.
The separation of the various branches of knowledge in these days is what is causing all the trouble. C P Snow talked of it in mid 20th C … all took no notice and now look what a mess you are in! Educate yourselves.
Guido Fawkes latest update on this story …
The BBC delta deception repeated yet again. Why does no one ‘fact check’ these delta stories presented as a climate change issue when the majority of the problem is unrelated? Titled “Climate change: The Indian village that could disappear under water.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-india-58895749
“Sediment retention at the dams is the main reason for the pronounced coastal erosion along the Krishna and Godavari deltas during the past four decades, which is coeval[23] to the hectic dam construction activity in these river basins. Impacts of this can be seen in destroyed villages like Uppada in Godavari delta,……”
Godavari delta is sinking at 4mm/yr from 40% sediment reduction from flow diversion and major oil/water/gas extraction, from table 1 here:
***https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4167699.pdf***
Dr. Pollock
Review license fee?
I wouldn’t bother.
Confiscate their complete catalogue of past programmes and sell off to Netfix etc. at best price.
Put all the rest on eBay with a 99p reserve.
But I think you will find that the only way the license fee will be reviewed will be a very substantial increase for eternity.
After all, Our Great Helmsman and his chums will wish to hose as much of our money on the British Bullshit Corporation as they have on Big Pharma and their other chums who have enthusiastically pumped up Project Fear to the Behemoth we now behold.
And we will soon be reassured to note that the threatened “Impartiality Review”, will be coming along precisely to eliminate all those timid and unfortunate suggestions that their promotion of every GangGreen, Woke, “Diverse” and Anti- British agenda might conceivably have been just a tad one sided.
There’s only one side, fools! The BBC side!
Mr Brumby, no quarrel with your stance. Being a BBC pensioner, I am a little more circumspect…
I too have complained to the BBC. Regardless of your political views, to interview – or rather attack- with such aggression, and utter disrespect is totally unacceptable. It is bullying in its rawest form. No wonder the world is becoming such a horrible place with the BBC thinking such tactics are ok. Rowlatt was well out of order- his actions were personal, not unbiased and objective.
Good to read all the above and their criticisms of Rowlatt. Note today, Charles Moore says much the same in the Daily Telegraph, so the critique has entered the MSM!
Can we imagine the BBC and in particular Tim Davie, will take note? Of course not. Rowlatt was talking to the PM, so any attack is justified.
Note also the BBC employs four environment correspondents and there is not a single science degree among them
I think it goes deeper than just the likes of the media. Just prior to Covid my business had a visit from the Local Authority “Carbon Reduction” officer allegedly to advise me. I joked with her what had she got against carbon as I thought “Carbons are a girl’s best friend”. She didn’t have a clue what I was talking about. I asked what she thought diamonds actually were – blank look. I asked what she knew about allotropes – she said she had a degree in History of Fine Art. So I asked her to leave which rather upset her…oh well.
Mr Sanders, you have my full sympathy. You describe the state of our education system at present and it is pitiful. Plus, employers take on such graduates and then send them out with no proper training – or even an understanding of the limitations of their knowledge. You will recall that under Obama, the US EPA classified carbon dioxide as a “pollutant”. Try living without it! See how plants get on with no CO2 in the air. I have read that below 180ppm, plants won’t grow…Do not give up. We need to spread knowledge rather than harbour it, because we don’t like the way the current leaders are going. All the best!
Obviously we cannot expect Justin R or Boris J to understand how we currently make iron and steel but most of our metals also require Carbon in their extraction. If we just look at our cars, powering them by electricity is only part of the equation, what do we think tyres are made from? Answer it is mainly a product of oil refineries. Similarly what holds our roads together ? Bitumen perhaps, also a refinery product. Do we stop making cement which uses large amounts of gas and coal as fuel?
Our lives are far more complex than Justin R suggests. Oh I forgot what do they think printing ink contains as a pigment, Thats right carbon black made from an oil refinery product.
We have a lot of work to do to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We should be working to do so but be realistic. Buying everything from China will do nothing for total emmissions.
Brian, brilliant! Bear in mind that those electric cars will have bearings that need grease – another oil by-product. The list is endless, but I love the idea of not being able to use tarmac for roads. Concrete has a high energy and carbon content and is insufferably noisy – try the A417 in Gloucestershire. They tried very hard to minimize the noise (not unreasonably) but it did not work. Bliss when you get off the concrete and back on good old tarmac!
The real problem is that these journalists and politicians have never had to think about the way the modern world works. Among their little crowd, showing their ignorance does not bring shame and humiliation – that is where GWPF, Paul Homewood and you and I come in…
Concrete and steel are 14.5% of global CO2. 40% of the cost of building dams . . . Fossil Fuels, plus towers, plus wires +++
Electric Cars . . . Here we go . . .
CO2 Added to the Environment . . . Electric Car Versus Gasoline Car
A Comparison of Two equal sized Cars
Tesla Model ‘S’ versus Toyota Camry
Schneider-Electric
Welcome to the Schneider Electric Blog
Jacques Schonek
Transmission Losses vs Distribution Losses on the Transmission network, the percentage of network losses is lower than on the distribution network. Citizens Advice suggests that about 1.7% of the electricity transferred over the transmission network is lost, and a further 5-8% is lost over the distribution networks https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/144711/download
Electricity has to be transmitted from large power plants to the consumers via extensive networks. The transmission over long distances creates power losses. The major part of the energy losses comes from Joule effect in transformers and power lines. The energy is lost as heat in the conductors.
Considering the main parts of a typical Transmission & Distribution network, here are the average values of power losses at the different steps.
· 1-2% – Step-up transformer from generator to Transmission line
· 2-4% – Transmission line
· 1-2% – Step-down transformer from Transmission line to Distribution network
· 4-6% – Distribution network transformers and cables
The overall losses between the power plant and consumers are then in the range between 8 and 15%.
This must not be mixed up with the efficiency of power plants like nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas turbine. These technologies are based on a thermodynamic cycle, which efficiency is in the order of 35%. This means that the combustion of nuclear, coal, or Gas, will produce heat, which will be converted into mechanical energy and then into electricity. https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/
35% is the average efficiency of Gasoline Engines also.
I will use an ‘average’ of 12 % for my calculations.
Green Car Reports – Why it takes more Energy than your Battery holds
The real reason for the discrepancy is that you lose some energy to Heat to the onboard charging. According to Kia, for instance, it’s typical for the onboard charger to lose 14 percent or more of the energy input on the way to charging the cells in the battery pack. Factor in charger inaccuracies (Kia notes that 3 to 5 percent isn’t unusual) and you could end up ‘officially’ putting in well over 15 percent more energy than the battery’s capacity while restoring the charge to 100 percent.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098248_charging-an-electric-car-why-it-takes-more-energy-than-your-battery-holds
Green car congress 05 September 2018
Unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, electric vehicles experience a loss of energy during “refueling,” with an energy loss of about 16% from the wall power to the battery during charging. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180905fotw.html#:~:text=Unlike%20conventionally%20fueled%20vehicles%2C%20electric,to%20the%20battery%20during%20charging.
Based on the KIA commentary I will use 16% as my ‘average’.
Energy Information Administration – USA
How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatt-hour of U.S. electricity generation?
In 2019, total U.S. electricity generation by the electric power industry of 4.13 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) from all energy sources resulted in the emission of 1.72 billion metric tons—1.90 billion short tons—of carbon dioxide (CO2). This equaled about 0.92 pounds of CO2 emissions per kWh. US Energy information. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
I will Use 0.92 lbs. per KWH
Tesla Model ‘S’
To cover 15,243 miles, I used 5,074 kWh of electricity, for an average of 333 watt-hours per mile.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090685_life-with-tesla-model-s-one-year-and-15000-miles-later
This consumption reading is based on the ‘power consumption odometer’ in the car. NOT from the household meter.
0.92 lbs. CO2 X 12 % line loss = 11 lbs. CO2
0.92 lbs. CO2 + 11 lbs. CO2 = 1.03 lbs. CO2 up to charging station
1.03 lbs. CO2 X 16 % charging loss = 16 lbs. CO2
1.03 lbs. CO2 + 16 lbs. CO2 = 1.19 lbs. CO2 per KWH for fully charged battery
Tesla Model ‘S’ with Electric Engine
1.19 lbs. per KWH X .333 kwh per mile = 0.39 lbs. CO2 per mile
Toyota Camry with Gasoline Engine
Exprhttps://www.autoexpress.co.uk/toyota/camry/mpgess
98 grams per km. or 0.216 lbs. per km X 1.6 km to miles = 0.34 lbs. CO2 per mile
0.39 lbs. CO2 X 15 % =.05 lbs. CO2 per mile
Therefore . . . Tesla model ‘S’ burns 15 % more CO2 per Mile driven . . .
The Toyota Camry with a Gasoline Engine produces 15% less CO2 than the Tesla Model ‘S’ . . . Per mile driven . . .
Thank you for presenting this analysis. I have ofter felt that might be the case but lacked the skill to work it all out.
I think this analysis considers just the usage of vehicles and does not consider production costs and life cycles of components, so, for example, battery replacement cost should be part of the mileage calculation.
When will these people educate themselves so that they understand that coal can be part of an industrial process as well as providing heat to produce electricity.
The quality of coal dictates which use it is most economically put to and as far as I understand it, the Cumbrian coal would be more valuable for industrial use.