The Guardian just won’t learn

Yup, that is where it is at, but it starts with the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67679732) where they give us ‘UN climate talks in jeopardy in fossil fuel backlash’. Yup, we have an issue here, but it is one that is given to us with some debatable sides.  You see, we are given “A new amended version of the text is expected to be issued on Tuesday so that negotiations can continue. Humans burning fossil fuels is driving global warming, risking millions of lives, but governments have never agreed how or when to stop using them.” There are issues here. I do not completely disagree with the setting, but in that same side plenty of governments (US, UK, EU) never did what needed to be done for the longest time, as such we are all reliant and too much dependent on fossil fuels. In that light, the US is the BIGGEST exporter of fossil fuels, but we do not see too much about that, do we? And that is not the largest setting either, for this we need the Guardian.

Remember this image. We saw this as the larger stage of misinformation by the media. The EEA (European Environmental Agency) gave us a clear setting that 50% of the damage we see comes from 147 facilities. Yes, you saw that right, 147 facilities cause 50% of the damage and for well over a year the Guardian ignored this, did not make mention this, made no effort to look into these 147 facilities. No, first we get some BS story about corporate jets and the EEA story goes back to December 10th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) where we got the goods. No, this time around we get Chris Armstrong giving us ‘‘Megayachts’ are environmentally indefensible. The world must ban them’, I do disagree, but I find more issues with a yacht then a jet. So whilst we are given “Abramovich’s yachts emit more than 22,000 tonnes of carbon every year”, I believe it to be BS. You see, some sources give us 7,020 tonnes a year. This number is smaller, yet equally debatable. You see a yacht tends to be twin engine and each engine is about the size of a Rolls Royce Spectre. Some are even bigger, so there is pollution. But where Chris goes off the rails is that instead of giving us “This yacht has 4× MTU 20V 1163 TB93 diesel engines, triple screw propellers, giving us X amount of pollution” we get merely a number and nothing is based on amount of pollution per hour. You see these people aren’t on their yachts 24:7, as such it is less pollution, and some will debate is that not too much either? It is a fair question and I do not have a clear answer here. And in that light, why was there no mention of that new yacht from Jeff Bezos? Is this just a handle of handing a Russian name to make the ‘ban’ more palatable? In addition when we consider “whilst over the last 15 years over 41,000 flights a day were added” and how much pollution is that? We do not get the real deal, the numbers and the evidence. It might be a opinion piece, but the Guardian is screwed up, to the highest degree going with hatchet pieces like this and not giving us any real numbers. And when we are given “Bill Gates might gain some plaudits for merely renting, rather than buying, mega yachts” they seemingly didn’t know “The impressive Wayfinder, one of the yachts in Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates’ fleet, is currently moored at the mega yacht marina in the Port of Malaga. Measuring 69 metres long and 14 metres wide, the Wayfinder has the task of servicing the Aqua mega yacht, the technology magnate’s main luxury vessel.” So he has a fleet, I didn’t know and for the most I do not care, but it shows just how much the Guardian embraces BS.

With the Guardian ignoring the EEA report, ignoring the fact that over 15 years 41,000 flights a day have been added and we do not get to see how much pollution that brings. So whilst we might trivialise some parts, the larger part is ignored and both the BBC and the Guardian might merely report and bring us opinion pieces, but we aren’t being informed. I wonder why that is. 

We might want to blame some of the players in that fossil fuel setting, but no one is pointing at the USA and its Brent crude oil, so why is that? I don’t have the answers and the media isn’t giving any. How weird is that? 

Enjoy your day.