Reposted by NOT MANY PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Rep. John Redwood highlights some of the BBC’s perverse behaviors:
I was surprised to receive an email from the BBC after my interview on Monday last week. It challenged me to prove that Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions were twice that of the UK, a claim I made in my interview. I was surprised because I would expect the BBC to know the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions around the world, as virtually every BBC news program and commentary these days has to have an article on climate change. I sent him back some sources that came up with a simple google search. I had of course checked my memories of the numbers before the interview so I knew they were correct. He showed no interest in my allegations about China, which emits around 27 times more CO2 than the UK.
He returned to the subject after consulting someone to point out that if you looked at consumption behavior rather than the places where fuel was burned and things were improving, then Germany would be in a worse position and Germany would be the leading exporter A better figure from carbon dioxide-soaked products would have a slightly better figure by transferring part of their CO2 to the importing country. Of course, Germany would still be the larger emitter. I stated that I am talking about COP 26 and the global treaty framework. The whole basis of international conferences is to get countries to commit to reducing the CO2 produced on their territory, as this is more under their control. The expression Germany’s CO2 emissions certainly means exactly that, the CO2 that they produce.
He agreed that the numbers used were correct but felt that he should write an additional essay on how perhaps we should use consumption-based numbers instead of the agreed international production-based numbers. I opposed this being done in the name of fact-checking my statements, even though it was evident that I had given exact normal numbers. Nonetheless, the BBC fact check then published a lengthy essay that began by quoting another source to show that my numbers were correct before embarking on a long apology for Germany and a presentation of numbers to show Germany in to shed a better light. Why? Why does Germany need to be protected when its business model is to mine and burn a lot of lignite and produce millions of vehicles using fossil fuels. In contrast, the UK has pretty much taken the coal out of the mix. Why not mention Germany’s controversy over the expansion of open-cast coal mining, its refusal to eliminate coal this decade, and not mentioning China, the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide?
It seems the BBC is determined to be right even when it is wrong!
The BBC’s “fact check” is here. In addition to preparing a meal from the consumption problem, it also says :;
Oddly enough, however, the report doesn’t mention the fact that Germany’s per capita emissions are 43% higher than the UK’s.
As Redwood rightly points out, the entire UN decarbonization strategy is of course about the emissions of individual countries, not their consumption. If Germany or China want to continue exporting their goods, they have to do so in a low-carbon way, as our industries are forcing.