I'm Not a Conspiracy Theorist, But I have Questions For the Climate Lobby.

More and more, I wonder what the actual goal of the Net Zero climate bollocks is. Because if the aim was actually net zero, then we would be investing heavily in carbon free power generation that could actually match the requirements of the country. 

The few nuclear power stations we have in the country are consistently producing baseband power for the country, consistently producing between 10-20% of total energy demand.

Strangely, Biomass has taken the place of coal and is producing just a bit less than nuclear. Of course we can't have coal anymore, we now have to burn the wood before it becomes coal, by clearing massive areas of forest to supply the demand. Yes they get replanted, but it can take decades to regrow. What happens to the wildlife in those areas of forest that is stripped of trees to fuel the Biomass plants?

You see the question I have, is if the environmentalists don't like nuclear because of the waste issue, then why not have tidal power? If their objection to tidal power is the devastation of habitat for wading birds, then why don't they have the same objection to the devastation of wildlife caused by hacking down forests?

Why don't they have an objection to wind turbines that hack birds out of the air? Or the issues around disposal of wind turbine blades? 

To me, there is the whiff of hypocrisy around the whole climate cause. IF the objective was the reduction of CO2, we wouldn't be burning billions of tons of natural gas every year. IF the reduction of CO2 was so essential and so desperate, then there would be a worldwide efforts to eliminate CO2 production TODAY. The United Nations would be putting huge pressure on countries like China to close their coal fired power plants.

IF the reduction was so essential and so desperate, we would be offered carrots to convert. There would be subsidies at the point of use to modify houses so that they were suitable for heat pumps. There would be huge subsidies for people to buy and run electric cars. There would be a huge nationally owned company upgrading the electricity grid and installing a substantial charging network.

Instead the subsidies go to the electricity generators. We are paying extra on top of the price of the energy in green levies. But hang on, that was only supposed to kick-start the green industry because 15 YEARS AGO WHEN THE GREEN LEVIES WERE INTROCUCED, the technology was expensive and not mature enough to produce energy cheap enough.

Back in the Blair and Brown days, over 14 years ago, the green tariffs were introduced to help the fledgling renewable energy production industry. That's a long time ago.

But now, 15 years later, haven't enough renewable wind turbines been installed to provide reductions thanks to economies of scale? Surely after 15 years of continuous energy generation the technology must be cheap enough to be able to be profitable without subsidies?

Surely, after 15 years, if the technology isn't mature enough, or cheap enough to stand on it's own feet and not require subsidies, then it's not a suitable technology? How much longer must we keep paying extra for our energy? If it doesn't need subsidies any more, why are we still paying them and who is the money going to?

If we are still paying subsidies, if the climate lobby are picking and choosing which environments they are happy to destroy, if certain technologies are favoured as opposed to other similar technologies, if governments are happy for us to continue producing CO2 but pay a fine, if Western governments are happy for China to keep building coal-fired power stations, that to me smells of political ideology , political activism, instead of actual environmental concerns.

Russian Sanctions: Targeting Innocent People.

 Okay, I understand sanctions against a government, restricting their ability to (for instance) procure weapons, or finance, or basically to dramatically affect their ability to do the things that governments do.

But... what's going on with sanctioning ordinary Russian citizens? 

What have they done that is illegal? For instance, Nikita Mazepin, the Formula 1 driver. He's lost his seat in the car at the Hass F1 team. He's now had his assets seized. But what has he done that is illegal? What is the lawful excuse for seizing his assets? Just because he is Russian? Isn't that unfair? Isn't that unlawful?

I could understand IF he was a Russian minister with direct influence over Putin, or benefitting directly from the action of government in some way.

But I draw the line at unpersoning someone just because they are Russian. Some wealthy Russians have not made their fortunes in Russia, have not benefitted from the Russian government and have no influence over government decisions. So why are the West targeting them unfairly?

Remember, the West supposedly hates Putin because he is a dictator. He's been in government for over 20 years. He's benefitted financially vastly during his tenure. His government is corrupt. So I can understand sanctioning the government.

But I can't for the life of me understand why ordinary Russian citizens are being persecuted in this way. It is vindictive and unfair.

Why not sanction the German government that paid billions to Russia for Russian Gas? They have had a far bigger contribution to the Russian government's coffers than ordinary Russians have. 

How hypocritical is it of Europe to exempt energy supplies from sanctions, supplying billions of dollars in funds to Russia for their gas, while at the same time impounding Russian-owned superyachts, businesses and bank accounts?

You really do have to ask if the ends really are the justification for the West's actions. Because otherwise we would resolutely cut off ALL funding to Russia. NOW.

Formula 1 Lewis Hamilton and STEM Excellence in the BAME community

I get that the innocent objective to Black Lives Matter is to promote people of BAME origins into areas where they are under-represented.

I get that Lewis Hamilton supports that.

But I get a whiff of hypocrisy when any organisation starts to say they have to to more to get people of BAME origins into their organisations. Especially F1.

As it's already illegal to discriminate based on race, there must be another reason why BAME people are under-represented in science and technology subjects. What needs to happen is to look at why people of BAME origins are put off such endeavours.

Not what I think these organisations are actually saying, which is to lower the threshold to allow people of BAME origins to take part on an artificial basis.

Formula 1 is about being the best in the world: the best technology, the best materials, the best engineers. I doubt whether Lewis Hamilton would countenance having a race engineer working for him that is there only because of the colour of his skin, that has been placed there to meet some quota and certainly not based on their ability to do the job. He wants to win so he wants the best in the world to be working for him. I'm surprised his fitness instructor is white, given there are so many very well qualified BAME fitness instructors around.  Although she is female, so that's a diversity box ticked I suppose.

Formula 1 is about being the best in the world and that includes the humans taking part. If people of BAME origins have not reached that level for whatever reason (but not outright racism) then that's something for themselves to look at. Where are the great BAME engineers, architects, designers? Where are the parents supporting their children in science, maths and engineering, getting them to knuckle down and gain the qualifications and experience required to excel at STEM subjects?

Why is it that these subjects do not attract the BAME population as much as for instance more physical tasks?

Just as there is a difference between men and women when it comes to technology and the sciences, it shouldn't be classed as racist to say that people of BAME origins are not interested by science and technology either. Maybe for them it's just not that interesting a subject? Maybe the successes they have in  sport compared to white people says a lot about what interests them and what they are good at? There may be the exception to the rule and by all means they should be accepted into the sciences just like any other human being, but maybe there's psychological reasons at play.

Do we cry racism when all the athletes running for Britain are black?

Maybe BAME people are just not interested in science. Is it really shocking or racist to say that? As long as the doors are open to the exception, to the BAME engineer that excels, then that should be enough. The gates are open, the opportunity is there, the playing field is equal when you get there, that's all one can hope for.

By all means outlaw the outright bigotry and racism that closes the doors to those that have the ability and aptitude. But don't cry racism when it might in fact be caused by the home environment and other social issues rather than racism.

Maybe the racism is internal to the BAME community? Maybe the lack of support, social pressures, Attitudes to STEM subjects amongst other things are the things that hold the BAME community back?

After all when you hear a BAME representative say that time is racist, or that science as a discipline is inherently racist (even though science cares not who discovers it) you have to wonder if the community are actually talking themselves out of excellence in STEM subjects.

Without a Hint of Irony....

The SNP in Parliament yesterday tabled an urgent question asking members to condemn the jailing of the Catalan politicians who held an illegal (in Spanish law) referendum and tried to abide by the democratic result.

The same SNP who went to court and continue to fight in Parliament against the democratic result of a legal referendum in the UK.

Now what words would you use to describe such an action? Irony probably isn't correct. Hypocrisy maybe?