COP27 Is A Downpayment On Disaster
By Paul Homewood
As usual the BBC paints the latest COP as a “historic deal”!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-63656412
Despite the hype, very little has been achieved, as the BBC have to admit:
Although a fund has been agreed in principle, there is no agreement about how much is put in, or who pays. Crucially there is no agreement that countries like China, India and Russia will pay a penny. The agreement to set up the fund is meaningless without answers to these questions.
And there is also no agreement to reduce emissions beyond COP26 pledges. In particular developing countries are under no obligation whatsoever to reduce emissions, as a condition for receiving this money.
As WWF put it, the loss and damage fund will be a downpayment on disaster!
Western nations have always given billions in aid for weather disasters around the world, and I don’t see this new fund being anything new, other than it will presumably be under some sort of central control.
My guess is that any money put into the fund will largely come out existing aid budgets. The Mail hit the nail on the head with this article:
There is in reality zero chance that the UK will be able to afford to throw billions into the pot, and neither will the EU. Perhaps the most telling comment came from Steve Barclay this morning:
You may have noted that the cut in the overseas aid budget to 0.5% of GDP, introduced by Boris last year, has now been extended to 2027 by Jeremy Hunt. Barclay’s comment seems to suggest that any extra funds for weather losses will have come from that same budget. There is no way that Hunt will go back on that decision, and increase it for this new fund.
And all of this ignores the elephant in the room – the US. With the GOP now in charge of the House, and thus in control of the purse strings, they are likely to block any increase in US aid, particularly if it ends up in some pot controlled by the UN.
Biden could not even get the Democrat controlled Congress to approve a couple of extra billion to meet earlier US commitments.
We also need to remember that John Kerry has been quite forthright about the need for China to pay their share.
Finally we need to look at the things which have not been agreed at COP27.
There were calls beforehand for the West to considerably increase its $100 billion a year climate funding, with silly figures of $1.3 trillion mentioned. As far as I can see, this is not mentioned at all in the Agreement.
Also there seems to be no mention of “reparations”, only loss and damage. This is important, because the acceptance of the need for reparations would create a dangerous legal precedent, which could leave rich countries liable for open-ended claims.
We’ll see what next year’s meetings bring. But my guess is that we’ll see yet more fudge and kicking the can down the road. There will probably be a small fund set up, with some sort of vague promise to increase it by 2030. And the issue of China and others paying their share will be something to be looked in a few years time.
I’ll give the final comment to the eminently sensible Jacob Rees-Mogg:
Pit we have not got a few more Moggies in Parliament.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The bet wetters are spouting the usual garbage this morning. Wonder if the story will change if we get a record cold winter here in the UK. Won’t hold my breath for that….
So 33,449 delegates came up with this. What a waste of time, effort and money!
All-expenses paid holiday in Sharm-all-Shakedown?
I’ll have some of that please!
Bet there were some big bar tabs to pay.
Despite all those delegates and days of meetings the only speech I saw broadcast on the BBC (I think it was the only one broadcast) was from a 10 year old reading a script – of course it received applause from the assembled crowd.
Says it all really.
COP events are yet another government jolly. And, like all such events, promises made are forgotten even before the attendees leave.
I like Willis Eschenbach’s description on WUWT years ago: ‘Conference of the Partygoers’.
The only ones to come out of COP with a profit are the local hoteliers and the local hookers! The amusing (or sad, if you look at it that way) thing is that every year without fail some earth-shattering “binding agreement” is reached in intensive negotiations during the night after the party breaks up.
Do these people seriously think STILL that we are all that naive.
Next year try putting some of the millions COP28 would have cost into this mysterious “fund” they keep on (re-)creating every November.
Hypocrites and chancers, every one of them!
Countries guilty of self harm eg complaining of flood climate damage need to look at whether their de forestation is really to blame (looking at you Pakistan) before holding their hands out
I missed the key outcome . . . where are they meeting next year?
Dubai
Thx.
Quick check shows Dubai does allow alcohol.
The purpose of COP is to insert drains into Western economies. Cos reasons.
The dandy John Kerry prances around acting important, but, in the end, he gives no money to Rwanda.
A hundred countries send people to the party, expecting to get money. As the years go by, and they don’t get money, their psyche has to be changing. There are dark possibilities. Perhaps they know there will be no money, they are just sending their favored people to party. An annual reward for loyalty.
When they finally realise that there will never be any serious money (rather than boondoggles and the odd Mercedes) in it they will, with luck, start to exploit their own hydrocarbon resources for their own affordable energy. Germany buying increased amounts of coal from Botswana is a perfect image of the insanity of the failed ‘Energiewende’ for me. I enjoyed the recent demolition of windmills by the Germans to get at more ‘dirty’ lignite too (pity about the village that was also demolished though).
The oil rich has quite a decent coal resource which is proven and already being eyed for development.
“Crucially there is agreement that countries like China, India and Russia will pay a penny. ”
Is there a “not” missing from this statement?
Yes!
Good spot thanks
A distinction without a difference.
Thanks Paul.
Keep up the good work – your website provides an extremely valuable public service.
” the eminently sensible Jacob Rees Mogg ” has the last word ? ….Not quite . Did you spot Janus Rees Mogg’s open letter published in The Guardian Paul ? Guido did some excellent detective work on the matter
” Rees -Mogg Backs Solar Projects After Guido Reveals Mum’s Side Hustle ” https://order-order.com/2022/10/13/rees-mogg-backs-solar-projects-after-guido-reveals-mums-side-hustle/
” Lizs plan to ban solar projects on farmland might cause a bit of a headache for Jacob Rees Mogg ……given his mother is a part owner of 150 lovely acres of Somerset which is set to house a gigantic solar farm . A nice little money spinner if Liz allows spades to hit the ground …………..Jacob has published an open letter in – of all places – The Guardian ,assuring us hes ‘no green energy sceptic ” and throwing his weight behind more low cost solar projects …………….The Guardian claims Mogg described Lizs plan to ban solar development of farmland as ” unConservative ” .It would also be pretty inconvenient for his mother ”
Yes we are going to see a lot more fudging and kicking the can down the road .. Westminster has been playing this game for years
This time last year:
BBC: “COP26: Climate deal sounds the death knell for coal power – PM”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59284505
5 months later the same BBC: “Coal plants asked to stay open longer due to energy supply fears”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61256615
Fears of blackouts always trump irrational fears about the effects of a minor-if-any change in our climate.
So where will the coal come from? There is plenty of it here waiting to be dug out.
The UK has 3 coal-fired power stations left. China has 1,110 and India has 285. There is no need to say anything else about who should pay.
Thanks for that. Lucky the idiots in Westminster didn’t have them blown up, along with the rest of them.
Gridwatch shows coal outproducing solar right now by . . . ∞
But that happens most every night.
Dubai
I guess they are expecting global cooling if they feel the need for a warmer destination.
Good and useful article as usual.
To take Moggie’s comment a little further, we should be demanding payment from those allegedly suffer from “climate change” for the benefits we have brought to them.
It’s a never-ending circus of climate claptrap. New year, same old shee-ite.
Reform should stand on a totally ‘anti-climate change’ policy ticket.
Scrap (or at least defer) the CC Act.
Prioritise UK energy security.
Make it legally-binding that UK can supply X % of our own energy needs at all times.
Sanction test-drilling for 20+ gas wells to establish tremor rates, timescale and gas flows.
If successful, allow full UK onshore gas industry to begin work.
Massively expand gas storage.
You get the idea. There’s loads more possibilities. They need to push all the conservative buttons which the so-called but entirely fake ‘Conservatives’ are ignoring. Open goals everywhere.
I’d vote for anybody who puts forward a firmly ‘anti climate change’ mandate at an election.
The Tories won’t. They prefer to set rules (like CO2 taxation and ban on coal fired generation) to make energy more expensive and less reliable. This makes the case for new state-run nuclear power stations, such as the Sizewell C announcement which was slipped into the Autumn Statement as follows: “So I can today announce that the government will proceed with the new plant at Sizewell C. Subject to final government approvals, the contracts for the initial investment will be signed with relevant parties, including EDF, in the coming weeks.”
I think there are better options than Sizewell C but I’m in no doubt that nuclear fission (and maybe ultimately fusion; don’t hold your breath) are preferable to coal, oil, or gas (and infinitely preferable to solar farms and wind farms and biomass!!), not because of “emissions” but because of the principle of using raw materials for what they do best.
It only needs a quick glance round the room I’m sitting in to know that, with the exception of the log burner (and that needs firelighters to get going!) only a couple of pieces of antique furniture would exist were it not for fossil fuels — and even that is an assumption!
Since they are finite, though that end is still a long way off, it makes no sense to use fossil fuels where there are other abundant sources of energy available which cannot replace coal, oil or gas in the present state of technological knowledge.
It’s a no-brainer as far as I can see. But what would I know? 🤷♂️
Mike. Those who claim renewables are much cheaper than fossil fired generation need to address the contradiction that renewables still need government subsidy to attract investors. If renewables are the superior/economic technology, investors should be quite capable of seeing this for themselves, and putting their own money at risk (no subsidy).
It’s the same for nuclear. If this really is the superior/economic technology, why can it only exist with state backing? We need to understand the risks and costs, including development, construction, operation, and closure.
If the risks and costs of coal and gas fired generation are favourable compared to nuclear, investors will freely back this technology. But the government stands in the way of investors by skewing the market using carbon taxation and bans
So the government has chosen winners (wind and nuclear) and it imposes its preferences on the country.
Bad choices are putting UK industrial productivity into free-fall. This won’t end well.
Obviously if “Unreliables” were going to be such a “Great Leap Forward” the World would be embracing them with unbounded enthusiasm.
When the motor vehicle replaced the horse it did so because it was clearly more efficient and serviceable, we didn’t have to ban horses and criminalise blacksmiths.
Good one catweazle. And I’d happily put a £10 bet against H2 and the BEV being any part of horse replacement. We only have to go through the wasteful process of satisfying our leaders that H2 and the BEV are inferior technologies compared to the ICE. Not to mention lost opportunity to make further improvements in the ICE.
It’s the price we have to pay for parasitic green dogma, promoted by the intellectual giants like the Great Doomberg and blubbing Louise Harris.
Jordan,
the Heritage party are against the current climate change actions and seem to be the only one questioning the ‘consensus’?
However, they have a tiny following unfortunately.
The Reform Party advocates becoming energy independent by using our own fossil fuels too.
Beyond question, the country worst affected by “Climate Change” is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Not that temperatures, weather, ‘carbon’ or anything measurable has changed noticeable. But we have been blessed with a bunch of gormless, venal, virtue signalling twats posing as “scientists”, “politicians”, “journalists”, “academics” and even “businessmen” who have sold the Country down the river.
I nominate (from an extensive list) Ed Miliband – for his Lunatic suicide note “Climate Change Act 2008” – as possibly the most execrable of these traitorous vermin.
Thoroughly agree Martin. I bless the day at 87 and bedbound I will not have to put up with the nonsense for much longer. Let this silly next generation sort it’s own problems out.
On many levels it’s terribly sad you think like that. But who can blame you?
Thanks for that HotScot; but don’t worry I still have my sense of humour and a lot else beside, so no worries. Oh I forgot to mention sanity – I left lying around somewhere I think.
God bless you, I’m sure you still have much more sense than some of the idiots at COP.Depressingly although a little younger than you I often feel the same.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Mind you, I’m all in favour of paying third world country’s the “reparations”, BUT they would have to prove, conclusively, that was we who caused the “disasters”!!!!!
Seems to me this is a Universal Basic Income for third world despots, but then we have our own despots.
Here here.
There’s a crucial point here and it’s nothing to do with funding per se.
COP seems now to be an annual event but, more importantly, it is another step towards a World Government that is being planned by Bill Gates and friends. I heard this week that the G20 countries have now handed over power to the WHO to decide who flies (the vaccinated) and who doesn’t (the unvaccinated) and this is not just about Covid. Apparently is will be up to the WHO to decide what vaccines of the future will be required by international fliers.
It’s all watered down at the moment by calling the dictates “guidelines” and “advice” but the will inevitable be firmed up later on. So we have a growing number of unelected bodies that will be able to dictate how we live and what we do on a World scale.
I believe originally COP was to be a one off to save the World. Now we have a World meeting on an annual basis with a newly formed unelected “transitional committee” to advise national governments on future actions. As we’ve seen, with disastrous consequences, what happens when politicians lazily rely on recommendations of committees.
World Government by stealth.
Well said and to add to the worries this World Government smells exactly the way the COMMUNISTS do.
Actually C2, it’s Corporate Socialism, Benito Mussolini’s favoured synonym to Fascism.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/07/18/corporate-socialism/65e15154-982f-4418-bd4b-0868b9dba787/
It’s a pilgrimage Mike. The “P” of COP can be read as “Pilgrims”.
WEF ‘leader’ Klaus Schwab also lectured political leaders at the recent G20 with:
“The World Will Look Differently After We Have Gone Through This Transition” – WEF’s Klaus Schwab on the Great Reset to World Leaders at G20 Summit
What Transition and Grat Reset is he talking about why is Schawb even at the G20?
World Facism
Already jockeying to host COP 31 in 2026, Australia are pushing for it.
Ah, that old “World Government” cherry.
I see you’ve managed to get Bill Gates in too.
Bit of vaccination fear too.
Anybody else? How about the shape-shifting lizards in Buckingham Palace?
So Adam, what do you think is going on and what do you think is meant by “The Great Reset”?
“World Government”
The UN has stated that ” The system of global governance represented by the United Nations, warts and all, thus remains crucial to global order, peace and development. ”
i.e. the UN claims responsibility for global governance
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/global-and-national-leadership-good-governance
There are several definitions of governance within this context, most of which link to government
It’s the same mob of Malthusian psychopaths at all these global gatherings. Klaus Schwab inserted himself in the recent G20 meeting. Which country was he representing?
As usual, the problem is redefined so there is never a solution, always the dysfunctional status quo. And it’s not because of a lack of knowledge. The lack of knowledge is used to keep to an agenda, most skillfully done by the Liberal, Compassionate end of the spectrum.
Whether it’s done knowingly, or unknowingly, it’s not admirable at all:
This straight 🔥 from Italy’s PM shows how left-wing globalists are the new colonizers and right-wingers fight for the oppressed
https://notthebee.com/article/this-straight–from-italys-pm-shows-how-left-wing-globalists-are-the-new-colonizers-and-right-wingers-fight-for-the-oppressed-
The text below the video continues the theme.
How does printing more “money” lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to “save the planet”?
Broadlands, the same could be said for any “carbon tax”. A tax shifts money from the private sector to the public sector, therefore from private choices to state choices. There is nothing to support the idea that state choices will preferentially reduce total CO2 emissions (even if there was a supposed benefit from reducing CO2). In fact, if we are allowed to be a tad cynical about it, public sector inefficiency might suggest a net increase in CO2.
What’s the definition of climate change loss and damage? What will a country have to prove to get a payout and who will decide whether the claims are true?
Excellent question!
They can self identify as losers or damaged.
Based on UK asylum policy that will automatically trigger compensation of several million quid per applicant.
Sounds reasonable enough; can’t see a problem once we give our magic money tree a shake.
“Jeff Currie, who is Global Head of Commodities Research for Goldman Sachs, describes the utter futility of “green” energy”:
“Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about $3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82.”
https://stopthesethings.com/2022/11/11/wicked-waste-nothing-to-show-from-3-8-trillion-squandered-on-intermittent-wind-solar/
Most likely they will have to prove their “Elites” have nice Swiss Bank Accounts with plenty of funds to provide nicer than usual brown envelopes, thanking our own “Elites” for their aid money donation. With perhaps a picture of the Mercedes Maybachs they bought with the bit that ‘stuck to their fingers’.
More interesting might be the box ticks needed to AVOID being the first cow to be milked.
As long as the ‘big man’ gets his 10% (and probably along with a few others on the take).
At least they all had a nice jolly to Egypt. Beats working for a living.
Look at those gurning goons on the BBC picture.
Who wouldn’t be ecstatic at the prospect of squillions of free money?
We live in the stupidest times imaginable.
Signs say “gender justice.”
We shouldn’t be offering them free money, we should be offering a free-CO2 life. Lets see how they get by if they only had non-FF energy and everything else that that entails..
Gamecock: Yup. That well-known victim-class of a spot of warmer weather.
Harry: Indeed. Part of me would love to see FF O&G co’s pull their products. Let complainants enjoy their FF-free Green utopia.
I’d give their societies less than a week before chaos, and societal collapse within 1 month.
They’d then promptly blame O&G’s co’s for withdrawing their fuels!
Handy. If government ministers find themselves getting down to their last million, they can approve a £50 million payment into the climate fund because there was a nasty storm in Zambia or wherever, and some of that money will, via the miracle of international money laundering schemes, find its way back into the country and directly into their pockets.
Cop27 was such a massive success that they’re already organizing Cop33
‘Historic deal struck to help countries worst-hit by climate change’
. . . others need not apply.
There seemed to be a large number of BBC employees enjoying themselves at Sham-el-shake.
Goals: 0
Attendance: 44,000
Moggies’s remark is so basic. Read up Rosling’s ‘Factfulness’. But the penny is dropping all over the place.
Only China, of major economies, has money. The others will have to borrow from China to contribute. The USA’s debt is amazing; the latest twist: A lesser- known part of the Covid19 Panic laws in the USA, the employee-retention tax credit, or ERC, has required the IRS to pay out more than $58 billion in claims.
Firms that help companies apply for this get 25% or more for each successful claim, so shady characters are jumping in with both feet, raising alarms at the Internal Revenue Service that some claims are going beyond what the law allows.
I’m shocked!
The fun part will be the fight among the developing countries over who gets paid from this nonexistent fund. The poorest countries? The low islands? Those with the biggest damages like middle income Pakistan? All three pushed hard for the deal.
If we now have 27 years of COPs and atmospheric CO2 had increased from around 360ppm to 420ppm during this time, it would appear either:
A) COPs are causing an increase in CO2 concentrations
or
B) they are a total waste if time money and effort – same can be said for the IPCC.
perhaps if they just stopped, everybody would be happier and the time, money and effort could be used elsewhere.
I can see many positives in this as I am sure others can
Bjorn Lomborg advocates spending money on adaption to climate change. This is what humanity has always tried to do. Unfortunately, the pseudo-religious eco-loons are in charge, sacrificing the poor to their wrathful climate Gods.
If they want money for that they should start a charity.
As usual, nothing will come of the promises made because none of them have consequences if you default.
Paul, if I may, here is my take on the outcome of COP27:
And on the concept of climate justice that infused it:
The irony is, that if we pursue Net Zero, we won’t have any money to give. Without cheap energy we become a middle income nation.
“…a middle income nation.”
That seems optimistic. I feel Britain is in the position of a man who falls off the 80th floor of the Empire State building and, while passing a man on the 20th floor, calls out, “So far, so good!”
My thought, too, dave. Net Zero means death.
Take London (please!): Over 8 million people. Net Zero means no way to get food to them. Those who don’t get out will die.
Has anything been achieved except to kick the can down the road? More importantly, none of the ecomentalist attendees have yet understood that ‘controlling climate’ is not within the power of man, and that withholding finance for coal/oil/gas projects from the developing world is cruelty at its highest.
Countries guilty of self harm eg complaining of flood climate damage need to look at whether their de forestation is really to blame (looking at you Pakistan).
Remind me somewhat of the ‘Life of Brian’
‘What have the Romans ever done for us……..’
The global problem is government. As in far too much of it. Stupidly, grotesquely expensive and actively endeavouring to impoverish and curtail the freedom of the citizens under their jurisdiction. It has become their raison d’etre. Someone, somewhere surely has a solution to this.
BBC’s in-house eco-activist masquerading as a reporter strikes again.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2022/11/20/bbc-reporter-calls-un-climate-summit-cop-27-agreement-crazy-the-language-on-cutting-emissions-is-really-disappointing/
So he’s disappointed…
Oh dear…how sad…never mind!
Don’t panic we’re saved!
What is thought to be Europe’s biggest battery energy storage system has begun operating near Hull.
The site, said to be able to store enough electricity to power 300,000 homes for two hours, went online at Pillswood, Cottingham, on Monday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-63707463
A quick calculation on this report reveals that this mega installation will provide 300,000 homes each with 327Watts for 2 hours in the event of a Humberside blackout.
How these lazy journalists get away with it beats me; but I suppose working for the BBC protects them if they comply with the propaganda policy.
Do we know if that 327W/home is just battery (pretend) ‘capacity’ or actual deliverable power?
If I recall it was just the total battery capacity in MWatthrs divided by the number of homes purported to be serviced over a 2Hr period, by which time the battery would be flat or have blown up.
I expect in practice everyone would switch their kettles on when the lights went out; so phut all over again!!!😱
No mention of costs here except a claim that there were no subsidies involved. That’s alright with me; but just hope we don’t have to bail them out when it all goes financially phut.
Never believe the “no subsidies” claims. Wind farms get paid over the odds for their energy, and preferentially, get constraint payments when they have to switch off because the wind is too strong or the grid cannot take it, but now store that undelivered ‘constraint’ energy in batteries, and charge the grid *again* when they feed it back in.
Agree to that , but as the whole article was so incompetent I felt I could deal with it all.
I cannot believe how ignorant people are about basic science. Our politicians are just jumping on this bandwagon of ignorance. COP 22 is all lies. There is nothing we can do about CO2 – every human being EXHALES CO2 every SECOND we are alive and so do many animals !! It is PLANT FOOD and therefore VITAL for the PLANET to give us all grass, trees, hedges, flowers, etc. Most of our food needs CO – farmers who grow tomatoes pump CO2 into the polytunnels to help them grow big and juicy with lots of flavour !!! Do INFORM yourselves.
COP22, and COP23, and COP24, and CIOP25, and COP26, and now COP27; and also all of COP1 … COP21.
BBC ‘outreach’ is quite some stuff:
‘The BBC has committed to a number of projects over the Charter period:
Delivering a News Hub to give external media organisations access to BBC video material for use online.
A Shared Data Unit – staffed by the BBC alongside reporters on secondment from local news providers – to share data journalism with news organisations across the media industry.
The employment of up to 165 Local Democracy Reporters who cover councils and other public services on behalf of the BBC and local news organisations.
The partnerships were created in 2017 as a result of an agreement between the BBC and the News Media Association, which represents the majority of the UK’s regional press, and a wider dialogue with other parts of the local news industry.
More than 150 media organisations representing more than 1,000 print, online or broadcast outlets are now local news partners.
They are entitled to receive content generated through the News Hub, Shared Data Unit and Local Democracy Reporters.
You can find out which titles are eligible to receive content by searching our directory.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/lnp/
From that doc:
‘The health of the UK’s local democracy is important to all of us. It is there, in meeting rooms and council chambers up and down the country that decisions are made that affect our everyday lives. And so it is crucial that we keep a record. I understand the vital role that journalism plays in our modern democracy – shining a light on decisions, actions and consequences.’
And so, so it does, continue,
‘The Local News Partnership was created in 2017 specifically to help address the drop off in levels of local political coverage by providing valuable new training, the guarantee of political reporters and a base level of local political coverage, right across the UK. In doing so, it has also achieved something else of value – a
new way of working between the BBC and the local news industry, and indeed between the many different players that make up the local news industry itself.’
…
‘4.1 – Three parts of the Local News Partnership
There are three parts to the Local News Partnership that make up the intended total investment of up to £8m p.a. These three initiatives – the Local Democracy Reporter Service, the Shared Data Unit and the News Hub – were developed by the BBC and NMA, in consultation with the wider local news industry, and were intended to address key areas of need.
4.1.1 – Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS)
This is the largest initiative within the partnership. It aims to provide up to 150 Local Democracy Reporters (LDRs) to cover local authorities and public services across the UK. These journalists are funded by the BBC
through the LNP, but are employed and managed by local news organisations – working in newsrooms alongside editors and other local news journalists. The companies who hold these contracts are Suppliers.’
This bit is good, too. From the ‘SDU’ (shared data unit):
‘Perhaps the best indicator of success has been this impact felt back in partner newsrooms – a number of partners have either created a dedicated data journalism team or expanded their existing offer. This speaks to the sustaining impact of the SDU, which we explore further later on in section 4.4.
So what does 4.4 tell us? Well, not too much other than,
‘The LNP consistently spends less than the £8m total it is allocated by the BBC. The main reason for this underspend is the fact that LDRS only ever runs at about 90% capacity, or around 130 reporters. This is down to three key factors – the natural churn of reporters year-on-year, the difficulty in recruiting and
replacing these roles in a challenging news market, and a small number of reporter contracts left unallocated as some hyper-local organisations have declined to take them up.’
‘Hyper-local organisations’? Key factors? BBC underspend???
BBC paper link:
Click to access lnp-review-2020.pdf