Skip to content

BBC Countryfile’s Adverts For National Grid

March 14, 2024
tags:

By Paul Homewood

h/t Patsy Lacey

 

 image

From extreme weather to altered migration patterns for native birds, climate change is impacting nature around the UK in a myriad of ways. And with fossil fuel emissions billed as the main cause of the climate crisis, the solution for protecting the environment is clear: we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as a primary energy source.

Until humans cut carbon emissions, the adverse effects on nature may continue and worsen.

How is climate change affecting nature across the UK?

An obvious impact of climate change is warming temperatures. On average, temperatures have increased over the last century — resulting in hotter summers and warmer winters. While most of us love a hot, sunny day, these changes in temperatures can tweak the timing of seasonal events and wreak havoc on ecosystems.

Many animals set their inner body clock according to the seasons. So, if it becomes warmer than usual earlier in the year, wildlife wrongly assumes spring has arrived and begins acting accordingly. Flowers may bloom earlier than expected and have a detrimental knock-on effect for pollinators, like insects and birds, who rely on nectar, fruit and seeds.

Increased temperatures are also leading to a change in bird migration patterns, with many birds needing to move further north to escape hot weather. There have even been a few unexpected visitors, like the colourful bee-eater from Africa, appearing on British shores — which may delight birdwatchers but signifies unprecedented changes to animal behaviour.

These effects of climate change are happening too quickly for nature to react and adapt. Humans need to do all we can to lessen the impact. One way to start is with a switch to renewable energy.

Paving the way to a greener energy future

Even when under attack, nature is waiting in the wings with a solution. Renewable energy sources like wind and solar can help us power the nation in a greener way. To harness these natural resources requires an electricity grid capable of transporting renewable energy across the nation.

“The existing electricity transmission network was established over 70 years ago, at a time when most of our electricity came from coal-power stations, built in Britain’s coalfields. Many of them were in the middle of the country,” says environmentalist Chris Baines, who is chair of National Grid’s Independent Stakeholder Advisory Group.

“As we rely increasingly on renewable energy, the pattern of the electricity grid needs to change. This means building new infrastructure to take the energy from where it’s generated — much of it offshore —and carry it to wherever it’s needed. That’s a huge challenge.”

National Grid is working to provide everyone with cleaner, more affordable power. At the heart of this plan is The Great Grid Upgrade — the largest overhaul of the electricity grid in generations. The upgrade will involve building new electricity infrastructure (and updating old networks) to scale up the grid and make it fit for a clean energy future.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!!

https://www.countryfile.com/news/how-could-switching-to-cleaner-energy-help-environment

The whole piece is clearly no more than advertising blurb on behalf of the National Grid. Quite apart from anything else, Britain can build as many wind farms as it wants, but it will have zero effect on the climate. But what it will have is a devastating environmental impact on the countryside, something you might have thought the BBC’s Countryfile might be concerned about.

I was going complain about such outright bias by the BBC, when I noticed the headline to the article:

image

ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE!!!

 

.

Since when was the BBC allowed to carry advertising?

I’ve no doubt they will claim that the Countryfile magazine is a commercial operation, but given its links to the Countryfile programme, the whole thing stinks.

37 Comments
  1. Mrs Green permalink
    March 14, 2024 10:51 am

    BBC BS is relentless, this is almost daily gaslighting

  2. sean2829 permalink
    March 14, 2024 10:53 am

    Advocating seem noble. Advertising seems commercial. A lot of advocating is really stealth advertising. Seems the latter might actually be more honest with respect to what it’s all about. Perhaps it could also be a first step in turning the BBC into a private enterprise not supported by mandatory public funding.

  3. brianohara1 permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:01 am

    I go back to my earlier extract from Prof. Ian Plimer’s book, Green Murder, in which he includes an extract from an IPCC Report stating that 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans and 97% by natural causes, which begs the question what is driving climate change the 97% or the 3%.

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 14, 2024 11:09 am

      . . . and UK is <1% of the 3%. So knock yourself out.

    • March 14, 2024 11:59 am

      Answer NONE or so close to zero as to be unmeasurable and hey what a surprise, regardless of the at best Arts degreed activists constantly arm waving and pontificating about THE direct link between CO2 and warming and therefore their lovely Klymutt Sheyngsh, the reality could not be further from what they claim.

      There is NO statistically significant empirical data based evidence to support their claim about CO2.

      The IS statistically significant empirical data based evidence to REFUTE what they claim.

      “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”. Eric Arthur Blair.

      • gezza1298 permalink
        March 14, 2024 2:18 pm

        If there was one indisputable paper that proved the theory of Global Warming we would all know about it and probably not be on this site. But there isn’t. Nothing they put out stands up to scientific scrutiny and probably why none of their predictions have ever come true in 30 years or so.

      • March 14, 2024 3:13 pm

        Correct, but it is worse than that. It is not that there is no paper, there is no statistically significant empirical data to support the claim or thesis upon which to write a paper. The data does not exist. Science is an interesting discipline. Only law and mathematics have “proof”, science has theory supported by empirical data which is why this weeks “theory” can be completely overturned next week by more/better/different data. Science is a journey not a destination.

        All they have are models and models do not produce empirical data.

        A statement I repeat often:

        “There exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind to supports the claim that CO2 liberated and returned to the Carbon Cycle by the actions of man be shown in any measurable way be shown to be responsible for all or any part of the current welcome warming of the Planet, the fourth such warming in recent human history”.

        Science exists only where there is empirical data. no empirical data, no science QED.

        There IS however empirical data based real science which refutes the claim.

        Strange therefore that the truant from Sweden keeps repeating “follow the science”. Well young truant, I do!

        Last word

        To the JustStopOil useful idiots, supergluing yourself to asphalt is not science. However the glue you use, the asphalt to which you stick yourselves and the solvent the police misguidedly use to release you, are all products of science and all come from hydrocarbons.

      • March 14, 2024 3:35 pm

        Clearly not my day today!

  4. Devoncamel permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:15 am

    Advertising, advocating, call it what you like. If the BBC wants to engage in such partisan biased activity take away the licence fee.

  5. Devoncamel permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:16 am

    Advertising, advocating, call it what you like. If the BBC wants to engage in such partisan biased activity take away the licence fee.

    • tomcart16 permalink
      March 14, 2024 11:52 am

      Advertorial is the word that you are looking for.

  6. Penda100 permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:25 am

    It might be a fine line between advertising and propaganda but it smells like propaganda to me. Time to “Defund the BBC”.

  7. Nigel Sherratt permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:31 am

    Windmills kill bats. Bats are protected in UK with unlimited fines and up to six months in prison. Is Countryfile conspiring to harm bats and break the law (for a fee)?

    https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/buildings/building-works-and-bats/buildings-bats-and-the-law/

  8. magesox permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:33 am

    From extreme weather to altered migration patterns for native birds, climate change is impacting nature around the UK in a myriad of way

    Windmills sure do “alter migration patterns” when they chop countless birds up constantly.

    As for the article, it’s not just shameless propaganda but it contains a number of disposable bare-faced lies. It’s an utter disgrace coming from a publicly-funded corporation.

  9. Phoenix44 permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:34 am

    Just lies. The idea that 2-3 birds out of tens of thousands signals birds having to “escape climate change” is beyond ridiculous. And the idea that warmer weather for longer is detrimental to biology is utterly false. We have no evidence whatsoever that earlier springs is somehow “fooling nature” nor will we , because spring varies hugely every year. That an average is different simply means we have more of the earlier springs, not that there is a problem for insects that live one season anyway.

    • magesox permalink
      March 14, 2024 11:36 am

      Spot on analysis Phoenix

  10. March 14, 2024 11:36 am

    And with fossil fuel emissions billed as the main cause of the climate crisis,

    Obvious point: where is the proof to support the above statement ?

    I’m not sure what “billed” means in this context … “top billing” in a stage show perhaps ? It’s certainly very theatrical.

    • March 14, 2024 12:19 pm

      Very theatrical.

      billed

      Looking at the dictionary “advertised” or “sold” grammatically fits in that sentence.

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bill#English

      Until humans cut carbon emissions, the adverse effects on nature may continue and worsen.

      I like they use the word “May”

      What if humans cut carbon emissions and the adverse effects on nature may continue and worsen – people do talk about cooking the plant after all.

      Humanity is more vulnerable to extreme weather/climate events than what we can reasonably mitigate with our engineering capability so why all the focus changing Co2 levels at this point when there is little evidence this will protect us from extreme weather vs engineering.  

      I wonder why they used such ambiguous emotive language?

      • gezza1298 permalink
        March 14, 2024 2:21 pm

        But of course, it MAY not so a massive waste of money to achieve nothing.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      March 14, 2024 1:21 pm

      Yes those carbon taxes are very expensive, and billed to you.

  11. iananthonyharris permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:41 am

    If

    t is the Beeb’s job to report on issues, not to campaign on them; something it has sadly forgotten when it comes to climate.

  12. Olddigger permalink
    March 14, 2024 11:59 am

    I moved to an Upper Pennine valley as a boy in 1958 with my family and moved all of 200 yards from that fabulous home in 1975. Apart from being told by a local third generation farmer in April 1963 after that severe winter here that they have seen better conditions for farming and worse before and he said that it will turn better for his son, which it has of course. What I have observed is that winters are much milder but the summers are hardly any different. There has been a change in climate but what the MSM call climate change is merely weather!

  13. Citizen K permalink
    March 14, 2024 12:58 pm

    Bit off the main topic but did anybody hear about the Gatwick airport carpark fire last night?

    https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/fire-in-gatwick-airport-car-park-not-being-treated-as-suspicious-4554482

    ‘Not suspicious’, but this YouTube commentator claims one of the security guards said is was caused by a Tesla catching fire:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEuE1e4IQhg

    This one in Rochford at least made the BBC (but is hardly headlining):

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-68562072.amp

    Which comes after a 700-vehicle fire at the same yard in August last year!

    https://www.essex-fire.gov.uk/incidents/700-cars-alight-2023-08-11-21-06

    Safe and effective!

    CK

    • gezza1298 permalink
      March 14, 2024 2:57 pm

      A recent survey says that car dealers are increasingly refusing to take battery cars in part exchange. Gosh, can’t think why….

      The Rochford fire has been identified as starting from a fault in the battery of a battery car and burnt 8 cars. Quite few less than the fire there last time. Meanwhile, Geoff BC received an email from somebody who arrived at Gatwick and was parked there. They were taken so far in the bus then had to get in a minibus for last bit due to clearing up from the fire. Carpark guy told them a Tesla started the fire and burnt 11 cars.

      Why would you want to have a car on your forecourt that nobody wants to buy, the value of which is falling and could burn a lot of your stock.

  14. It doesn't add up... permalink
    March 14, 2024 1:24 pm

    P-p-p-pick up a pylon.

    Convert your farm to solar. They’re advertising £1,000 an acre rents.

  15. Malcolm permalink
    March 14, 2024 1:47 pm

    “…the solution for protecting the environment is clear

    Actually, it’s not clear at all. More statements of ‘fact’ with no evidence.

  16. gezza1298 permalink
    March 14, 2024 2:36 pm

    I think this walks a fine line since it using a well-known BBC programme as a title for a magazine which I don’t know – but presume does – come from the BBC. The problem with this National Grid advert is that the hosting website is NOT a BBC site but hosted on Our Media.

  17. PhilipB permalink
    March 14, 2024 5:25 pm

    All comes down to the questionable concept of CO2 causing climate warming. Quite how an inert gas can do other than warm up when the ambient temperature rises or cool when the ambient temperature falls like any other medium (rocks, lakes etc.) I fail to understand. The second law of thermodynamics (vaguely remembered from A level physics 60 odd years ago) must surely apply. Like a hot water bottle – warm when filled before bed but cold as charity by morning!

    So it would seem logical that the most the CO2 can do is extract/hold heat for possibly a little longer than air so slightly cooling the perceived warmth during the heat of the day and then emitting that retained heat in the cooler nights??

    Water/water vapour is surely a more significant factor with its latent heat properties as is the actual heat released by civilisation – the urban heat effect?

    Concepts of CO2 layers in the upper atmosphere allowing heat from the sun to get in while obstructing the heat leaving seem most unlikely possibly displaying an ignorance of what heat actually is (? IR photons?)

    I suspect most have latched on to the rather inconsistent correlation between CO2 rise and climate warming – perhaps they are aficionados of Dr Wakefield’s (discredited) theories about autism which were similarly based on doubtful correlation?

    • March 14, 2024 6:58 pm

      An interesting comparison is the Sahara at night. I went trekking there a few years ago, and slept in a Bedouin tent one night. I nearly got frost bight in my toes when I went barefoot for a pee in the night!

      But here’s the story! The Sahara cools down so rapidly at night because there is so little water vapour in the air. The extra CO2 makes bugger all difference

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        March 14, 2024 7:50 pm

        Paul.

        Ian Plimer often uses the distinction between Mackay & Mt.Isa in Queensland. Mackay is on the coast whereas Mt.Isa is well inland in the desert, but both (more or less) on the same latitude so solar not a variable. Summer days in Mackay are tropical with warm days and humid nights. Mt.Isa gets even warmer during the day and can get quite cold at night.

        The difference is humidity not CO2.

      • PhilipB permalink
        March 15, 2024 12:48 am

        Right on as ever, Paul!

        So why do we spend £yea-many-billions on Carbon capture when it so evidently makes little difference to GW?

        Is it possibly because the likes of Monbiot and Rowlatt, Miliband E. and Davey E. et al have a better understanding of the laws of thermodynamics than this SOF who enjoys his diesel Volvo and his oil fired central heating

        Or is just a con?

      • Nigel Sherratt permalink
        March 15, 2024 3:13 am

        ‘Monibot’ (in the true spirit of Graun proofreading) knows which side his bread is buttered, his knowledge of thermodynamics and radiative transfer is another matter (zoology, Brasenose). He has, at least, seen the light (somewhat) on nuclear if Wiki is to be believed.

    • Nigel Sherratt permalink
      March 15, 2024 3:06 am

      Van Wijngaarden and Happer provide an excellent detailed explanation confirmed by satellite measurements. The key point is that the effect of adding further CO2 is negligible beyond 420ppm. 420ppm is less than we need for healthy drought resistant plants anyway.

      https://co2coalition.org/publications/van-wijngaarden-and-happer-radiative-transfer-paper-for-five-greenhouse-gases-explained/

      PH’s point is well made. The frost on your car windscreen after a still, cloudless night has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with water vapour.

    • Nigel Sherratt permalink
      March 15, 2024 3:30 am

      ‘As always in physics, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The vertical infrared intensities measured at the top of the atmosphere with a satellite-based Michelson interferometer at latitudes of the Sahara desert, the Mediterranean, and Antarctica can hardly be distinguished from the observation-based calculations produced by the authors. The agreement is excellent by any standard. Moreover, the greenhouse saturation effect is very significant, and reduces the climate sensitivity of greenhouse gases to levels much lower than suggested from theoretical climate modelling. These findings should be discussed widely and should be taken very seriously by policy makers all over the world. In summary, a landmark paper that should be published as it is, and be widely disseminated.’

      Prof. Dr. C.A. de Lange
      Amsterdam

      Hansen started the whole ‘Thermostat Theory’ scam by misapplying feedback theory (and, ironically, by messing with A/C thermostats in the room in which US Congressional hearing took place on June 23rd 1988). Monckton et al. have proof of the errors in his initial calculations (see WUWT for more details).

  18. David W. permalink
    March 15, 2024 11:43 am

    The BBC make me want to puke.

    Firstly, there is NO climate crisis just because Corbin and a bunch of idiotic politicians said so.

    Secondly, fossil fuel emissions are only billed by the BBC as the main cause of a crisis that exists only in the minds of an idiotic extremist few at the BBC. Proof of this is that the BBC masquerades a self styled climate editor with absolutely no scientific credentials whatsoever to misinform everyone about the extremely complicated natural processes involved.

    However, as per usual the BBC finalise with the same mitigating type of statement which always employs the words; maybe, possibly, could, potentially, etc. In this case they use the word “may” before worsen.

Comments are closed.