BBC Uphold My Complaint About Wind Farm Subsidies
By Paul Homewood
The BBC have censured Justin Rowlatt following my complaint:
The BBC‘s climate editor has been censured for giving viewers an ‘inaccurate impression’ of wind farm subsidies.
A viewer complained after Justin Rowlatt reported in June that the offshore wind industry was ‘now virtually subsidy-free’.
Upholding the objection, the BBC’s executive complaints unit said it was not clear that he was only referring to projects which had been recently approved.
A viewer complained after Justin Rowlatt (pictured) reported in June that the offshore wind industry was ‘now virtually subsidy-free’
This meant viewers were ‘likely to form the impression’ that the statement covered the industry as whole. ‘As existing installations are expected to receive significant subsidies over their lifetime, that would have been inaccurate,’ added the unit.
The finding was ‘discussed’ with the Oxford-educated journalist, 55, and an online version of his story was amended.
Mr Rowlatt was made the BBC’s first climate editor in September after being chief environment correspondent, his job at the time of the report. Last night a BBC spokesman said: ‘We note the ECU findings.’
Just for the record, offshore wind subsidies last year amounted to £3.5bn.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
In a real job he would get a warning from his employer. But the BBC will probably give him a pay rise and send him around the world to find lots more scary stories.
A viewer complained in June, Mr. Rowlatt was promoted in September.
Then Harrabin & Shukman throw in the towel.
Very well done Paul, a very merry Christmas to you and yours 🙂
Seconded.
Trebled! 🙂
Well challenged. Have you been invited onto GBNEWS yet ? They put over a balanced view of things
A chink of light in the darkness Paul, well done indeed. If only the subsidies didn’t end up on my electricity bill.
A chink of light in the darkness Paul, well done indeed. If only the subsidies didn’t end up on my electricity bill.
Sorry, dodgy finger.
As the actress said to the Bishop
“Mr Rowlatt was made the BBC’s first climate editor ” – steer droppings purveyor more like.
We all know also that those projects recently agreed will cost far more in the end, and we will bail them out.
Absolutely, took the words out of mouth!
Excellent although see the BEIS have launched next CfD today and putting another £200m in the offshore pot.
It will be interesting to see what sort of response they get. With the turbine manufacturing industry openly saying that they can’t make turbines cheap enough for wind farms to make money at the maximum allowed bid prices it could get few bids. But perhaps an under the table deal promising bailouts has already been done.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/29/rsted-says-offshore-uk-windfarms-need-urgent-repairs
“The Danish wind power firm Ørsted has warned that up to 10 of its giant offshore windfarms around the UK and Europe will need urgent repairs because their subsea cables have been eroded by rocks on the seabed.
The renewables firm, which is behind plans to build one of the world’s largest offshore windfarms off the coast of Grimsby, told investors it might need to spend up to DKK3bn (£350m) over the next two years to repair the cables.”
Perhaps Baroness Brown (Julia King) can get the government to help them out, as Ørsted are paying her £40,000 a year as a non-exec director and she is still the paid chair of the CC Adaptation sub-committee.
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4565/registeredinterests
Strange about the sea bed cable erosion. The cables are normally laid in trenches safe from the scouring of currents and bottom trawls. Perhaps the cost of dealing with this failure relates to poor original execution for which the UK government has no liability — legal or moral.
40k a year? Peanuts by some standards…
‘The role of Director of Climate Emergency and Behavioural Change at Waltham Forest Council will be paid £109,000 a year.’
Back in the day comedians would have had fun with that job title.
– – –
Glad to hear low-rat got his comeuppance for once.
“Subsea cables have been eroded by rocks on the seabed”
That won’t go down well with people advocating an “Offshore Ring Main”
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/wind-farms-norfolk-offshore-transmission-network-8540464
Wrong sort of rocks ?
That won’t even touch the sides!
“Just for the record, offshore wind subsidies last year amounted to £3.5bn”
As far as the parasitic magic energy industry is concerned this is indeed free money.
OK, but is the implication that from now on windfarms will not need subsidy?
BoJo may in fact have made such a nonsensical claim. But notice the subsidies have not been terminated.
I suppose we can say windfarms do not need subsidy when the investment case doesn’t need a couple of £100m of income guarantees in a CfD pot.
Well done. I await the publication of the apology from the BBC for misleading the public..
Rowlatt should be forced to admit his lie in full, quoting the actual subsidies with the same prominence as the original broadcast.
Spot on!!
Hear, hear, Idau!
Exactly . . . would it reverse the empty heads who first believed though ??
Hi Justin!!!! 😂🤣😁
Is this similar to “Go Brandon”?
One small victory, well done.
Good news. Well done Paul.
Paul
Thanks for the latest figure for off-shore wind subsidies. Up to date costs are the first area of discomfort for the so-called renewables lobby.
Well done. I think we can expect another round of highly misleading reporting as the new CFD round is implemented. Keep a watchful eye for things like failing to note that CFD bids are in 2012 money, now being rapidly eroded by inflation, and more claims that wind is unsubsidised. Even if electricity prices go above CFD prices wind farms on Renewables Obligations will continue to make out like bandits from high market prices plus their RO subsidies. I’ve already suggested they should forego the £218m shortfall in RO funding from bankrupt retailers.
“Oxford-educated journalist…”. I don’t care if he is Oxford educated journalist but I do care if he will spin words to mislead people. Says a lot about Oxford or was he educated at Oxford primary school?
It’s surprising that the BBC’s world famous Energy Analyst Roger Harrabin didn’t immediately point out the error to Justin’s manager.
Why do Telly-Tax payers fund so many incompetents?
Well done Paul, that looks like a crushing victory in BBC complaints terms, though they could have explained that the CFD contracts will never be honoured at the bid prices!
Well done for persisting through the BBC bureaucracy/obstruction and winning!
Mansfield College, Oxford University, where he studied Philosophy, politics and economics. So absolutely no grounding in Climate, Geology, Geography or anything that might qualify him for Environmental commenting? Nice one BEEB. pfffft
“Where he studied Philosophy, politics and economics“
If he studied economics then he absolutely SHOULD understand subsidy payments!
“The BBC‘s climate editor has been censured for giving viewers an ‘inaccurate impression’ of wind farm subsidies.”
In the traditional legacy press news model, a reporter is scrutinized by an editor. No story is printed without the approval of the editor. No story is printed without at least TWO people having read it.
So Rowlatt is ‘climate editor.’
1. “a person who is in charge of and determines the final content of a text, particularly a newspaper or magazine”
An ‘editor’ writing stories without supervision.*
‘The BBC‘s climate editor has been censured for giving viewers an ‘inaccurate impression’ of wind farm subsidies.’
That is simply not enough. He has demonstrated that he requires supervision. His title of ‘editor’ must be revoked.
‘Discussion was had with the journalist and online version of his story was amended’
Wait a damn second! Is he an editor or a journalist? The Mail has mangled the story. Obviously, professional writers don’t know what words mean, even words that describe THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
*If he had supervision, an editor-of-the-editor, then his editor should be rebuked as well.
Wonders never cease!
Thanks to Paul, another victory for ‘our’ side.
Thanks Paul, as always, Brilliant !
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1,688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1,300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel (14.5 % Global CO2 is from concrete and steel), 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium- Boron, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but first we must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing and operating them become public. Once it becomes Clear that 28 % of the Electricity is lost as HEAT between production of Electricity and having a fully charged battery . . .
I am trying to do my part with these comments. Bringing ‘The Embedded Costs’ of Going Green to light, but who ever asks ?
The article in the Mail says
The finding was ‘discussed’ with the Oxford-educated journalist, 55, and an online version of his story was amended.
Does anyone have a link to the modified article because I can’t find it
The drip drip effect may be beginning to work, lets all add to the flow
Has this nerd taken over from Harrabin Shukperson? Oh dear. Not a good start. I’m watching for an error which favors the sceptical case.
“*My* Complaint About Wind Farm Subsidies”
Congratulations, Paul, but I’m guessing that you were NOT the only person to complain.
It does break my rule that complaining to the BBC is a waste of time, cos they almost always try to fob you off.
… https://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-bbc-upholds-complaint-against.html