Bishop Hill BBC joins Guardian divestment campaign
Apr 16, 2015 BBC Climate: WG3 Ethics With Alan Rusbridger's divestment campaign being relentlessly hammered in the Guardian, it's no surprise to see Roger Harrabin answering the call to arms with an article at the BBC on the same subject. It's quite funny in parts:
Are we approaching the twilight of the fossil fuel era? A few years ago that question would have seemed absurd. But a combination of forces is squeezing carbon assets like never before.
The oil price remains stubbornly low.
And of course we can't burn the fossil fuels, blah blah.
The oil price is of course low because of a surge in production. I'm struggling to see oversupply of a commodity as the herald of its downfall. Readers should also rest assured that the consequences of divestment for the Third World are not addressed. For the BBC and the Guardian and their fellow travellers it is morally wrong to consider such unpleasantness.
Bishop Hill
I've adjusted one of the pics from the BBC piece slightly.
;)
Reader Comments (72)
Alexander K on Apr 17, 2015 at 5:43 AM
I totally agree.
There are plenty of VERY rich people in Africa, and in the poor countries of Asia as well. What they do not promote or encourage, are the laws that we used to have in Britain: about property, private wealth and an impartial judiciary, an eye for tradition to ensure continuity, and an expectation that their children will aspire to greater things. Today, even our Elite do not appear to appear to acknowledge these values, deferring to alien customs and discouraging these wealth creating practices so, instead of spreading our knowledge and wealth across the world, like we used to do, we are expected to be sucked dry by those parasites, who can be relied upon to be ungrateful, and punished when we object to having our lives disrupted! Witness climate alarmists wanting the sceptics punished, some requiring imprisonment and even death!
We used to spend what we could afford, and no more, have no more children than we could afford and our educational ability was based on our parents efforts, with opportunities available for those with the right attitude. It meant little wealth was wasted.
We now have children who, through the complete incompetence of their, usually, 'fragmented family', start school not only not knowing how a book works, many are not toilet trained and some don't even know that they have a name, let alone able to write it down. This breakdown of civility only puts greater pressure on childrens' homes where it is a struggle for those working there to create any normality for the children involved, with the chance the children could be the victims of the peado-pick-and-mix culture found in some of the establishments.
Even if children manage to get through to their GCSEs successfully, they are told they can choose ANY subject for A'level, and any degree course, then they find that it is not as career enhancing as expected! It guarantees waste: isn't that why it is promoted by the Blob?
Many children start school unable to understand or speak English, let alone write it. Why should they bother - they need to value their family's inheritance, and the State, the taxpayers, can foot the bill, with the teachers having to go beyond their call of duty, everyday, and give less attention to those who are proficient but should still do better! Seventeen percent of children leave school unable to read, write and perform Arithmetic.
Instead of rectifying this awful mess, we are expected to direct our attention towards fictional global forces, like Climate Change, and stop it by building windmills! It doesn't matter whether they do anything, like generating electricity, when we want it, or not. It is increasing the generating capacity that is important: it gives Religion a bad name!
And there are people in those countries accepting aid who say that it is a corrupting influence and destroys the chance that genuine markets can develop, so that viable businesses can thrive.
So, it looks like all this aid is doing all that it is meant to do!
JamesG on Apr 17, 2015 at 9:53 AM
"Free markets may theoretically reward the wise and punish the fools but real experience tells us they reward the criminals and punish everyone else."
Free markets have rules, impartial rules, that the allow the participants to make choices.
These rules are made and enforced, ultimately, by Parliament, but we don't have one, do we? We have a rubber stamp machine, passing whatever is handed down from Brussels and corrupting our own government machinery.
Government should pass laws, regulated by the regulators and upheld in the Courts. The Education system should educate. The BBC should educate, inform and entertain, while the Police should apprehend rapists, especially of children, and Social Services should protect vulnerable children. And Public servants should remember who pays their salaries, and pensions!
"Man is not the rational economic unit of simplistic models, he is too often ruled by fear, greed, hate, sheer ignorance or blind dogma."
That is why our traditions are so valuable. They have given us and the world so much: wealthy, understanding, education and leisure to those able to take advantage of them. But, apparently, they are to be destroyed as there is no guarantee that everyone will be equal.
Harrabin has the typical left wing ''I'm OK Jack'' attitude. To prevent the use of fossil fuels by Africa is morally corrupt and will not change the course of the natural climate changes, nor those that have been foisted onto humans.
This puerile idea of 'divesting fossil fuel stocks' demonsrates a complete misunderstanding of how the world works. The real target thry have is for everyone to stop USING fossil fuels but in the absense of any idea about how to make that happen they resort to selling their stocks while continuing to use.
Its a bit like an anti smoking campaigner selling his BAT stocks because he cant stop smoking himself. Madness.
And Roger Harribin is an idiot .... Yes the end of fossil fuels because there is so much of it ?????
JamesG
Here is a real life experiment - compare and contrast the fortunes of the FRG and GDR from 1945 onwards.
Well that is just a little bit simplistic - the sort of thing that Will Hutton or Polly Toynbee might say, or one of the dribbling sycophants over at ATTP's moan blog - eg does this happen at all times in all markets as you seem to be implying? I commend to your attention the works of John Kay - such as Everlasting Light Bulbs or The Truth About Markets. You will also find in those books very good explanations of what economists mean by "rationality" (not quite what Hutton and Toynbee say it is) and why economic forecasts and models are not worthwhile (they only reflect the wishes and prejudices of the modellers or their clients).
Being selectively blind does not only apply to AGW believers. I wrote about LENR on the 15th at 7:15. If you can follow the evidence that LENR is indeed real, it is a good idea to divest from fossil fuel, although that is a little premature.. Also LENR is a far more promising solution to providing Africa with energy, making this discussion moot..
"Free markets may theoretically reward the wise and punish the fools but real experience tells us they reward the criminals and punish everyone else."
Please support this comment with actual facts and logic. I think that you are confusing crony capitalism with free markets.
If this is true investments will pour into fusion and we will see an era of cheap power. The trouble so far is that the evidence is not all in so people remain rightfully skeptical.
VangelV wrote. "If this is true investments will pour into fusion and we will see an era of cheap power. The trouble so far is that the evidence is not all in so people remain rightfully skeptical."
The proof is now far better than for the IPCC's version of AGW. Pons & Fleischmann have been replicated. Co-deposition makes loading the Palladium with Deuterium far more certain and repeatable.
Rossi's Hot Cat has been replicated independently. There are now a number of countries scrambling to climb on board. So yes, there will soon be massive investment.
Rossi is lucky to have teamed up with Tom Darden. I am impressed by the man.
See http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf
VangelV wrote. "If this is true investments will pour into fusion and we will see an era of cheap power. The trouble so far is that the evidence is not all in so people remain rightfully skeptical."
The proof is now far better than for the IPCC's version of AGW. Pons & Fleischmann have been replicated. Co-deposition makes loading the Palladium with Deuterium far more certain and repeatable.
Rossi's Hot Cat has been replicated independently. There are now a number of countries scrambling to climb on board. So yes, there will soon be massive investment.
Rossi is lucky to have teamed up with Tom Darden. I am impressed by the man.
See http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf
Adrian,
With fusion power won't there then be a danger of peak hydrogen?
It's worse than we thought...
WE MUST NOT ALLOW A MINESHAFT GAP!
Jones wrote. "With fusion power won't there then be a danger of peak hydrogen?"
I understand you were being sarcastic, but it is worth noting the E-Cat is only a couple of hundred cc capacity (I don't know for sure the variety Rossi is using in the 1 MW plant)
The Hot Cat isn't even filled with H2. It just contains a small fraction of a gram of lithium aluminum hydride that supplies the H2 when heated.
Diogenese : "Free markets may theoretically reward the wise and punish the fools but real experience tells us they reward the criminals and punish everyone else."
No examples given, not even theoretical ones. So "experience" here just means something like "I swallowed it whole from the BBC or the Guardian".
Hi Adrian,
Yes, I was of course being sarcastic but I hope with a streak of humour! (The "mineshaft gap" comment was from the last scene of Dr Strangelove. High grade humour indeed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y)
I have a vague understanding of the physics of fusion (nowhere near that of ATTP of course, being an astrophysicist) and the energy liberated from even very modest quantities of hydrogen or helium is prodigious.
Will take a while to consume enough to reach the peak I suspect.
I for one will be perfectly happy to utilise such forms of energy and discard my petrol driven (V8!mmmm) beauty but I'm not of the view any more that we have to act out of some sense of climate catastrophe urgency.... Especially not when I see the rank hypocrisy of the so-called "green" movement..
Oh, also not when I see with my own eyes the prognostic scares simply not coming up with the goods....they...just...ain't.....
Sorry Adrian, started to rant there....
Cheers
Andy
Hi Andy,
Yes, it will take a while to use all the hydrogen in the oceans.
What puzzles me is that the skeptics, who analyze the flaws in IPCC;s version of AGW, won't look at the proof that LENR is real. I believe it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that CO2 is not a threat - if it ever were.
I hope these fools drive the stock prices nice and low- I will buy even more shares and energy related ETFs and mutual funds and laugh at hose same fools all the way to the bank.
I do wonder how many of these corrupt media whores are actually deliberately helping to arrange bear raids on and such other unethical (sometimes illegal) market tactics.
Adrian
Where on earth do you get this odd idea that climate sceptics won't ook at LENR?? Being sceptical of how much effect CO2 has on the climate, has no bearing whatever on the physics involved there. How could you possibly conclude otherwise?
Katisha wrote. "Where on earth do you get this odd idea that climate sceptics won't ook at LENR??"
Well if they had they would see that it was proven. Only a handful of scientists have excepted it so far although the numbers have started to increase. DOE still is not interested in looking. It reminds of the early days of AGW when the few that questioned IPCC were considered kooks.
Obviously if LENR is proven CO2 would not be considered a problem (if it ever was). So discussions on climate/CO2/fossil fuel becomes just an academic debate. Yet apparently I am the only one to have commented about this here or on other sites like WUWT. The few replies I have received are mostly troll-like from those who have not looked.
Well if they had they would see that it was proven. Only a handful of scientists have excepted it so far although the numbers have started to increase. DOE still is not interested in looking. It reminds of the early days of AGW when the few that questioned IPCC were considered kooks.
What exactly is your point? If your fusion story is true it will get plenty of action from investors and the developers and investors will get rich while the world will get cheap energy. Skeptics have no problem with that.
VangeIV,
LENR will get plenty of action and it's not "my" fusion story, but meanwhile Governments will make pledges and certainly will waste millions of dollars on something that is not necessary. Money that could be put to better use & efforts made to speed the implementation of LENR. How long do you think it will take the UK to react even after the results of the one year trial are available? Do you think they will cancel that off shore wind farm?
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/12/12/three-north-sea-offshore-wind-farms-receive-green-light/
(In my post "excepted" should of course have been "accepted")
LENR will get plenty of action and it's not "my" fusion story, but meanwhile Governments will make pledges and certainly will waste millions of dollars on something that is not necessary. Money that could be put to better use & efforts made to speed the implementation of LENR. How long do you think it will take the UK to react even after the results of the one year trial are available? Do you think they will cancel that off shore wind farm?
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/12/12/three-north-sea-offshore-wind-farms-receive-green-light/
The bigger question is why the government should waste money on anything. As I said, if the fusion story is correct there will be plenty of people looking to cash in no matter what the government does. Let private investors take the risks and get rewarded when they make good decisions. We don't need government to do anything but get the hell out of the way.