Tag Archives: EEA

September 16, 2025 · 11:23

Rehashing a smear-campaign

That is at the centre of this and the Guardian is guilty as fuck (pardon this expression). So what gives? Well on August 10 2025 I wrote a blog article where I gave light to an article they posted on August 7th 2025. I did it in ‘The emotional grab’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/08/10/the-emotional-grab/) as I said there, I had some issues with the article. And I stated “And in that story, we see one photo of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was taken in Riyadh, May 2009. It is the only time that his royal highness is mentioned. There is no mention of him anywhere in the article, I checked. So why is he there? Because of the mention of Saudi Arabia?” Then we get “Then we get the wife Emma, she is mentioned four times, and twice by name. What is her involvement? Or is she merely dressing (like a Window) making this story more ‘humane’ The more I read it, the less it makes sense.” I ended the article with “In the end I wonder what this article served. It was not the truth (too much emotion and too little evidence for that), was this another anti-Saudi smear campaign? I am not sure but as we see the lack of evidence and no reference to the declassifieduk site, which could have been used to spice up the article. I reckon that this counterbalanced the article and the article would make even less sense. But that is merely my view on the matter.” So now we get (less than 21 hours ago) the same article as a podcast (By David Pegg. Read by Shane Zaza), as such, what is this rehashing of a smear campaign. Is the Guardian setting out feelers for politicians? I didn’t bother listening to the podcast as there are too many issues with the printed article and if they are resolved it would prove that the Guardian isn’t doing its job correctly. It is a simple setting we tend to see in a smear campaign. So what is the issue with the British government (because this is evidently the push as I see it) So what did the Saudi government do wrong? Did they not rise the oil prices too much? Did they not buy enough British sportspeople? Your guess is as good as mine and I reckon that the Guardian owes the readers (and listeners) a decent explanation. And if it was rehashing for news levels, the Guardian left a lot on the floor. There is the EEA report in 2022 where they stated (outright) that 50% of all the environmental damage was done by 147 factories (I gave light to that a few times), but no that never made the papers apart from the settings that they (and their friends) felt happy with. And they were eager to blame airplanes for all that environmental damage. Even Taylor Swift got that dirty spade of clubs (hidden joke there). As I showed the readers that 41,000 flights a day more amounts to a lot more than the private jets out there. And to wreck Tim McGrath’s day out there this week. He was every bit as guilty as the Guardian itself. And when I see that the EEA report hands out the setting to 147 facilities in Europe. How does the smear-campaign towards Saudi Arabia men make the top 25 anywhere?

That is the setting of the day and the Guardian advertising that they are under pressure doesn’t make the cut. Clean up your editorials to begin with and then give proper light to the EEA reports.

Have a great day, I’ll be looking into Microsoft a little more today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

November 12, 2024 · 18:28

Short of brain, short of memory

As I see it, Georgina Rannard from the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2lvq4el5vo) needs a little education. It started my (somewhat) raging nature when I saw ‘Ultra-rich using jets like taxis, climate scientists warn’ I was ‘set off’ in a light of day that is somewhat darker then blue. You see there are around 24,270 private jets, two thirds are registered in the US and many of them, are corporate jets. You know these ‘scoundrels’ employed by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and alike. There is a fair amount of jets used by the ‘ultra-rich’ but the the numbers fade in to the corporate world. And she gets assistance from Prof Gossling (not the brightest professor in the land). I feel repetitive, as I wrote on December 10th 2020 in the article (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) where I wrote ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’, where Tim McGrath made equally mindless accusations. As I see it in 4 years they didn’t learn anything, they just used a new vessel to spout there nonsense. You see, the fallback in 2023, the 13th to be exact. I wrote ‘The Guardian just won’t learn’ I added a few details there, details that was available to the press for obvious reasons. There I wrote “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” each year 1,000,000 were added bringing to the total of 41,000 flights a day, every day. At this time (as far as I was able to check) was the fact that per 2021 there were 151,435 daily flights in the air. All whilst in 2019 there were 106,849 flights. I think that the stupidity of Georgina Rannard and Prof Gossling is clearly shown here. In addition to this is the fact that these jet are a lot more fuel efficient. It is just another example where leftist idiots put a little more blame on the ‘ultra-rich’ and I have no hidden agenda. I will never be ultra-rich, I have no intent to being ultra rich. Just rich would do, rich enough to have a nice place to live in and a nice retirement, but I reckon I am no different than 80% of us who all share that same wish.

As such I have questions, how was this “The 46% increase in emissions by private jets is probably due to rising demand and the limitations on commercial travel caused by the Covid pandemic” determined? The 15,000,000 flights from 1995-2010 would diminish these numbers. The other side is that the ultra rich would not fly them all the time, so where did these two dodo’s get the numbers? Then we get “The group is estimated to comprise about 256,000 people, 0.003% of the global adult population, each owning an average of $123m (£95m), according to the scientists.” So are they all sharing the 24,270 private jets? Then we get “One travelled by private jet 169 times in 2023, emitting an estimated 2,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide – the equivalent of driving 571 petrol cars throughout the year.” So who was that? Was that a Google (or Microsoft or Shell) plane transporting staff members? There is an amount of data (possibly fictive) that we are exposed to, and one case in 24,270? How random is that? As such we get the statement “The scientists chose not to name individuals, making clear they did not wish to point the finger at any one person.” Makes sense, but it also makes there data debatable. Because if there was clear evidence (like a thousand planes) we would get a really nice sentiment. And in response to this, I get back to the previous article ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ from 2020 where we see that 50% of the environmental damage came from 147 facilities in Europe. 

The EEA report (also in that document) gives a clear perspective, as such are Georgina Rannard and Prof Gossling anything else but a joke? The EEA gave us a clear report that 147 facilities were responsible for 50% of the damage, so why aren’t the BBC and the Guardian digging into that? They had the report for over 4 years. The media had that report and decided to ignore the report. So how blatantly stupid (and optionally corrupt) are they? A simple question and it gets worse from there. How many empty planes are flying? You see 41,000 implies well over 100,000 people. How many non-tourists are flying? I was in a plane from Amsterdam international to Budapest (Hungary) and we had a 767 plane to ourselves. Less than 25 people were in that flight. How much damage was caused? I reckon that at least 10% of the flights could be cancelled. But then we get economic issues like reserved (but unused) seats come into play and that is the larger extent. You can’t have it both ways. And I think the BBC knows that. 

Sorry for the rant, but these leftists accusing dodo’s get the hairs in the back of my neck up and there is enough evidence to do just that at present. Enjoy your day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 13, 2023 · 02:03

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 2, 2023 · 19:44

Two carbon based stories

Yup, we have carbon based cars, carbon based credit cards and also carbon based stories (this one). You see, two stories brought it up to the front in all this. The second story is given to us by the Guardian. It is ‘how a UAE sheikh quietly made carbon deals for forests bigger than UK’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/30/the-new-scramble-for-africa-how-a-uae-sheikh-quietly-made-carbon-deals-for-forests-bigger-than-uk) where we are given “The rights over vast tracts of African forest are being sold offin a series of huge carbon offsetting deals that cover an area of land larger than the UK. The deals, made by a little-known member of Dubai’s ruling royal family, encompass up to 20% of the countries concerned” and the one missing part is that this concerns Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum. We see here a larger impact into how business is done, how corporations and how governments do business. A simple setting, no laws broken and all on the up and up. 

You see, this relates to the entirety with the first article that we also got from the Guardian titled ‘Most sponsors of Cop28 have not signed up to UN-backed net zero targets’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/29/most-sponsors-cop28-not-signed-up-to-un-net-zero-targets). Here we see “Most companies sponsoring the UN climate talks in Dubai are not committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in line with globally recognised net zero targets, it has been revealed”. You see, the hands of the Guardian aren’t clean either. They refused (and failed) to report on the EEA report that showed that 50% of all the damage came from 147 facilities. They don’t give you that part do they? They will report on jets for rich people and whilst they hide behind their ‘walls’ they cater to who-knows-who. In addition there is the article from former NASA engineer Mark Rober (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7nJBFjKqAY) he showed how 20,000,000 trees were being planted. The article was from 2019 and so far they are at 24,513,083 trees. As such that team did more than most western governments. And they are still at it. So whilst we are pointing fingers and whilst the media is all about the blame game (more digital dollars) others are doing things, others are making it happen. Should Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum decide to donate to TeamTrees ($1 per tree) we could see that the UAE has done more by itself then all the European nations (and the United Kingdom) combined. Scary isn’t it?

Another field where America and Europe fall short. A simple equation and a simple outcome. So whilst we are all wondering what all that carbon tax is all about others are actually doing something about it, but the media will not give us that snippet of news, will they?

So whilst we consider that, also consider “The global accountancy firm EY, formerly Ernst and Young, which has been hired as the independent verifier of the climate record of all the sponsors, has also not set targets with the net zero scheme.” Another target not met, another target in the wind and the media stays quiet (or something like that). 

So whilst we look at COP28 and point fingers towards some, consider that it was that this Swedish Primary School kid named Greta Thunberg showed us that COP26 was all about ‘blah blah blah’ she was proven correct and how much media coverage did they get? So whilst CNN gives us ‘US announces rule to slash powerful planet-warming gas by nearly 80%’, the part we all seem to miss is that this target is set by 2038 and we should not forget that there is every chance that at that point there will be no United States of America left. When their debts explode, no environmental target will count, no target will matter but that part will only come to the surface AFTER the collapse (and that will make sense). 

So much blah blah blah and none of them are doing anything real about it, the only ones doing things and making things happen is TeamTrees, consider that this weekend.

Cheerio.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 28, 2023 · 00:55

Jokes in denial

Yup, we see that at times, we see the jokes making claims and then we see them equally in denial making us wonder what this was all about. This doesn’t start with the BBC article, yet it is a good starting point to make my case. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331) gives us ‘COP28: UAE planned to use climate talks to make oil deals’ and my first reaction is ‘and?’ You see good business is where you find it and a climate change event has hundreds of people all looking for an edge to make their bank accounts fat. This is not new, FIFA has done it for decades as has plenty of other players. But I digress. 

You see, we are then given “The documents – obtained by independent journalists at the Centre for Climate Reporting working alongside the BBC – were prepared by the UAE’s COP28 team for meetings with at least 27 foreign governments ahead of the COP28 summit, which starts on 30 November.” As such, where is the evidence? A mention of an independent journalist? Which one? Then we see a screenshot of something I could optionally create with PC Write in seconds (a 1983 text editor). If this is such a large issues, where is the ACTUAL evidence? This is the ICIJ joke all over again. Now consider the quote “This year it is being hosted by the UAE in Dubai and is due to be attended by 167 world leaders, including the Pope and King Charles III.” Now consider the setting the UK is in. Should the option arise where the UAE could sell the UK oil at $2 cheaper. Do you think that the UK would not accept? Consider that the UK In 2021, some 13 million metric tons of crude oil from Norway and that the larger image is “Norway ($11.7B), United States ($5.48B), Russia ($1.41B), Libya ($1.37B), and Nigeria ($1.19B)” (estimated numbers in 2021). That means that the UK would save well over a billion dollars. With the shortages they currently have a billion solves a lot of issues. Should it therefor not be done? Oh, and that is if there is ACTUAL evidence on the matter. I am willing to go on faith that ANY event will open doors to business arrangements. It will not hinder or lessen the impact of COP28 will it? And all this is related to someone claiming that they have documents, so where are they? What are these sources? Two simple questions.

The joke in denial
Now it is time to refer to the joke in denial. 

This all started with ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/), it was my response to that Guardian idiot with its ‘jets for the rich must stop’ You see the EEA had given us a document on environmental damage in December 2020, it shows that 147 facilities created 50% of that damage. I even added that document at the end.1% creates 50% of all the damage and the Guardian and the BBC never picked up on it, they didn’t even attack the document, they never drilled into the data. They did NOTHING. That makes them the jokes in denial. Now, if they opposed the document and handed us the evidence that would have been fair. But we got nothing and now we get even more garbage without actual or factual evidence. Why is that?

Consider that this day and have fun.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 16, 2022 · 10:58

Bullshit and Hypocrisy

Yes, two elements, more important, can you tell the difference? Can you tell the difference when it is the media doing both? In this case it is the Guardian who had the hypocritical balls to give us the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/15/the-guardian-view-on-cop27-this-is-no-time-for-apathy-or-complacency)

To understand this we take a quote, like “That’s why today more than 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view about what needs to be done. Time is running out”, and why does this get to me?

I wrote on August 26th ‘As credibility moves to the arctic’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/08/26/as-credibility-moves-to-the-arctic/) where I confront Matt McGrath with a few items. Then there was July 31st 2021 where I gave the readers ‘Place with a view’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/07/31/place-with-a-view/) and not to forget ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ on December 10th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) which has the ACTUAL EEA report as well. A report that to the best of my knowledge was never seen on the BBC site and not on the Guardian site either. No Matt McGrath was all about the rich people and their jets, whilst over the last 15 years over 41,000 flights a day were added. I feel absolute certain that at least a third could be scrapped. There is no need to have 15 flights a day between Amsterdam and Stockholm and that is merely one example. That is the first setting, the second was the EEA report, which gives us that 50% of ALL damage is done by merely 1% of the facilities. 50% of all damage comes from 147 facilities and as I can see it they ALL ignored that. Why is that? So please stop the hypocrite bullshit of “more than 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view about what needs to be done”, you should have done your job for years but you would not, you have (as I personally see it) no credibility left. 

As such the laughing suggestion “Impose climate tax on fossil fuel giants, media groups urge”, so how about you 30 do your fucking jobs for a change and have a hard look at these 147 facilities, or perhaps the list of airlines that added over 41,000 flights every day and dig into that part before you look at some ultra rich person with their fuel efficient jets that give a fraction of the carbon emissions that a normal jet gives. 

And the masses, the flammable masses love the idea of taxing fossil fuel giants. So how about this. I am hereby requesting that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reduces delivery of crude oil to the West (Europe and America) by 1 million barrels a day, how does that sound? I reckon the first hour idiots like ‘Just Stop Oil movement’ will love me, but that is the first hour. When the deal becomes as long as any of them are still alive, the limitation of oil remains their feelings will change very fast. We are our own worst enemy and the media has become the enemy of all. It is simple, the media are for the most are no longer bringing us the news. They are bringing filtered information, information that is approved by shareholders, stakeholders and the advertisers. So how does that grab you? There is a second solution, we release a biotoxin that removes 80%-90% of the human population, it actually solves everything, but certain greed driven people will think it is over the top.

Until real reporting is done by these 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries, they should shut the fuck up (I apologise for my wording here). But there comes a time when Bullshit and Hypocrisy are just a little too much, especially when out of these 31 groups (me included) I am the only one handing the people the EEA report and looking into it. The media has done jack shit on that element. This editorial was a bit too much to me and it should be way too much to all of you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

November 7, 2022 · 22:32

The simple truth that matters

I saw an article at the CBC which was a month old. The article (at https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/aviation-emissions-flying-climate-change) gives us ‘Yearning to fly’, I get it, most love a plane ride, for most it is the official beginning of a vacation. For some it is the beginning of more and for yet more others it is merely a business trip. There we get “Airports around the world — including, infamously, Toronto’s Pearson — buckled under the strain.” Yes we get it, COVID-19 was an element no one has ever lived through, businesses were unable to fathom impact, retention the workforce and keep their KPI on some level of bonus giving. But the problem is a lot larger. Then we get “Many observers say the current growth trajectory is unrealistic — and that the aviation industry isn’t being frank about it.” This sounds nice but there is a part missing. There was more we were also given “To give a sense of just how much we fly, there were nearly 39 million flights worldwide in 2019; that was up from 25.9 million in 2009.” And that is merely the beginning. Now we need to take a step back. On November 13th 2021 I gave the world ‘A COP26 truth’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/13/a-cop26-truth/) with reference to an article two days earlier. I wrote at the time “the larger issue is that over the last 15 years 15,000,000 additional flights were added. That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day. So how much CO2 do these flights create? More people and more flights, not the flights from the uber rich, no normal airline flights. I am willing to take a bet that at least 25% of those flights are useless and could be scrapped.” A statement that implies that we could remove 10,250 flights every day, so how much carbon does that take off the table? And the governments all over the world are unwilling to make that registration, consider one destination Amsterdam International (Schiphol), they get an average of 1166 flights a day, every day. There is not a bone in my body who tells me that this makes sense. London, Paris, New York, Amsterdam, Munich, Atlanta, San Francisco. I truly believe that it has come to the fact that the world has annual 38.9 million flights. If we merely scrap 2%, that amounts to 778,000 flights. So how much carbon emissions do we safe then? And we get some BS reporter at the Guardian give us the the pointing finger at the uber rich? Gimme a break!

They have ignored a EEA report (I think it was 2020) where the report states that 50% of all pollution came from 147 facilities. I initially mentioned it on December 10th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) I even included the report. The article titled ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ gives a lot to think about and the Guardian did nothing (well neither did the BBC), so whilst we yearn vacations and in many cases preferably per plane, there is still the matter of Carbon emissions and the essential need to scrap at least 778,000 commercial flights FOREVER. The Dutch KLM flies 15 flights a day to Stockholm. Really? Do that many people travel? If we examine and dig into the manifests of EVERY plane we will see gaps, too many gaps. There is no way that we need 15 daily flights to Stockholm, we can do with 6 easily. That is one route and we scrap well over 50%, we need to dig into these realms and we need to start scrapping presentation flights. The simple truth is that we seemingly think that there are so many people flying, the fact is that the entire setting is loaded from the start and it is time to get rid of a lot of them, if we need to create time we need to cut where we can. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 31, 2022 · 19:02

Place with a view

That is the stage, we have a view, we all have a view and we tend to have a point of interest. This ‘mess’ all started a few hours ago when I saw a three day old article on the BBC with ‘The public relations and ad firms refusing fossil fuel clients’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62303026) in the first instance, it is fine to refuse work, it is not always clever, but I get it. We have all kinds of industries that we shun and it is fashionable to shun fossil fuel clients, but it seems a little hypocritical to do so. So when I see “Last year, she decided that Done! would become one of the now 350 advertising and PR firms who have joined a movement called Clean Creatives. Joining the movement means they pledge to refuse any future work for fossil fuel firms, or their trade associations.” I merely shrug it off. It is a little superficial and somewhat hypocrite to do so. 

Why?
Until ALL employees of that firm travel with all means that use no fossil fuel, they still depend on it. Until they have an Elon Musk battery solution for the house heating, the equipment running, they rely on fossil fuels. So to shun fossil fuel firms is a little hypocrite as I personally see it.

The article also gives us “The United Nations (UN) recognises that the burning of fossil fuels – oil, natural gas and coal – “are by far the largest contributor to climate change”. It says that they account for “nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions”.” That is nice, but the facts are ignored, the MEDIA is doing everything to spin it into another direction. I discussed this in ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) There we see a report by the EEA (European Environment Agency) where the cover gives us that 1% of the plant are responsible for 50% of the damage, so what do people like Matt McGrath (according to some a journalist) state? “Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles” Yea right. Fossil fuels are here to stay. If you wonder why, wonder why the US sells 73% of its oil and then sends President Biden with its hand up to the UAE and Saudi Arabia asking for more cheap oil. The article sounds nice, and it is nice that someone takes a step in any direction, but with staff shortages as they are they can make all the presumption they want. I wonder where those ideals stay when it becomes a dog eat dog situation again. 

So when we see “The fossil fuel industry uses advertising agencies and PR agencies to make it harder for governments to hold them accountable. And ads are misleading and make companies seem more committed to climate action than they really are.” No one is asking when will the media give us the larger game where the US sells 73% of its oil, in that they become the foundation of shortage, but we do not really get to see that story, do we?

Reality
The reality is that we all realise that we need to change gears, we need other solutions and it is there that we see the larger problem. The EU with 147 facilities that the media avoids. The larger station that there are options and Elon Musk has several of them and in 2 years no one made a clear step towards instigating changes that allow for a different approach to the need of fossil fuel.  Not today, not yesterday, not last week. The foundation of options has been out and about for 2 years. Governments all over the world have shunned these solutions, as such the story of some PR firms shunning certain players reads like a joke. Governments are at the centre of inactions, but we do not get to see that part, do we? And all this BS of making the fossil fuel companies the bad player is partly a joke. Yes, they are not innocent, yet the world needs oil, that is clear as day and until the people leave their cars at home they can bloody well shut up. 

So when we see the end of the article “A lot of agencies will come to the point where they have to make the decision if they want to be able to recruit the brightest,” says Ms Townsend. “The young ones don’t want to work with oil and gas [clients].” Yes, that sounds nice and it is good to have ethical boundaries, but lets be clear. The government, the media are all in favour or misrepresenting certain parts, why are they not illuminating that side? Or are we putting fossil fuels quietly with the weapons and gambling branches? Because that has worked so well in the last decade. For me? I am in a different field, but if I can make good money in a branch and it is not illegal, ethical choices when I see the media and governments play catch and release with the truth and facts too shallow for words. 

In the end, I have nothing against Marian Ventura or her point of view, she is entitled to one and she is sticking to her guns (as it seems). But to read this in the BBC whilst Matt McGrath goes on his ‘Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles’ Don Quijote tour whilst the EEA gave us 1% of the facilities create 50% of the damage and he has not once, NOT ONCE taken a full page investigating that side of things, is just a little too hypocritical to my liking. 

But it could just be me, you judge, the December 10th article I mentioned earlier has that report. 

Yes there is a place, there are many places and they all have a view, but I have some serious issues with the view I am seeing.

Enjoy!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 29, 2022 · 19:20

Really? Part 3?

OK, that is not quite right, but it still is. You see 8 hours after my previous article, the Guardian gives us ‘Government policies will not get UK to net zero, warns damning report’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/29/government-policy-failures-are-obstacle-to-uk-net-zero-target-advisers-warn). This gives us “He said net zero policies were also the best way to reduce the soaring cost of living. Average household bills would be about £125 lower today if previous plans on green energy and energy efficiency had been followed through. “If you want to deal with the cost of living crisis, this is exactly what you need to do,” he said.” Yes, tell us something we do not know? OK, I admit that £125 loss of cost is a decent admittance of the facts, but take that amount and multiply it with 27.8 million households you see what I have been trying to say for days. I merely did not want it to hang on an amount. You see £3,475 billions is not merely a small amount, That amount twice over would need to be spend in the UK alone to optionally stem the tide of the energy boom it is costing them and not merely this summer, the next few years twice over. British winters will be as harsh as anything they face and it ill be worse for the US. Even at that same step, that amount is needed for just New York. There is no soft version to that story, it is already too late for that. I reckon that this coming winter will see the application of triage solutions and the people will personally see the harshness of a new doctor in the field. They will first hand see who might make it and who will be a write off. 2022 could start that setting for 3-4 years to come and those thinking that Elon Musk was having a bad week, he owns the IP that half the planet who needs to shake off (reduce) the oil dependancy at present. I reckon that Elon Musk is sitting pretty. Those making fun of him will have to acknowledge that they are clueless on where they actually are at present. Not a bad week I say.

And I believe that other part of Europe as well as the US will soon have to come with cautious articles on the harshness of life expectations. It will not come out in the big places, no it will get started on climate sources, on environmental grounds and then it will pick up to the wider audience. And at some point, someone will make the link with the article I wrote called ‘Ignored by media’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/08/19/ignored-by-media/) on August 19th 2021 where I highlight an EEA report where we see that 50% of all pollution is caused by 147 facilities. These were not my words, they are the findings of the European Environmental Agency and I found that in December 2020. So why is that not all over the place? I get it, pollution is not the same, but it shows that the media (for some unknown reason) is keeping these 147 facilities out of the media. What else were they keeping from you? And when you realise that the UK was playing footsie with the energy bill of 27.8 million households, what do you think the others are doing? Feel free to doubt me, but the EEA report was out for all to find, so why did we get a source blaming people with. Jet and the 147 facilities did not make the cut? 147 facilities that caused 50% of ALL pollution damage. It might not be the same, but they are pockets on the same jacket we all wear and you were kept out of it all.

And that net zero number will not be met by way too many players, why is that? Consider your energy bill over the next to month and wonder what happens when winter comes (apparently something to do with some game about thrones).

The parts we ignore, or that we are seemingly intentionally not given are connected in other ways. Now I will be the first to admit that I am not the smartest person on the planet (merely a top 10 contender), and if I can see that, if I can show the lines, you might tart wondering how misplaced your faith in the media has been, these clever people missed that? Or did they cater to someone else? I will let you figure that out. The 2020 article ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) has that EEA report at the bottom, so you read up and try to make sense of certain choices. Choices by the governments and choices by media. And try to enjoy your breakfast.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

June 18, 2022 · 05:09

The needy, the greedy and Dopey

Yes, a reference if ever there was one. Yet in the stage of an article that was the thought that hit me a second later. The article came from the Guardian titled ‘Fossil fuel firms ‘have humanity by the throat’, says UN head in blistering attack’. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/17/fossil-fuel-firms-un-head-antonio-guterres-blistering-attack) gives us all kinds of ‘information’ And we pause when we see “Fossil fuel companies and the banks that finance them “have humanity by the throat”, the UN secretary general has said, in a “blistering” attack on the industry and its backers, who are pulling in record profits amid energy prices sent soaring by the Ukraine war.” Yet the truth is not really that profound, is it? We can blame the oil dealers, but the truth of the matter is that for well over 20 years governments were dragging its heels in the investment that was essential for their nation, The US, the UK, Commonwealth nations, EU nations. None of them are without blame. And as such United Tony goes on a ramble of blaming. And with “They exploited precisely the same scandalous tactics as big tobacco decades before. Like tobacco interests, fossil fuel interests and their financial accomplices must not escape responsibility.” And where were the governments? Filling their pockets on that taxation. But that is something we do not get to see either is it? For centuries the world created a commodities environment and that should have stopped 30 years ago, or should have been deflated 30 years ago and now that the hole is deeper than one thought the blame game starts and the pointing fingers commences in earnest, but if you want to see the guilty party you only need to look into a mirror. 

And in the USA, where we see average diesel prices at $5.798. In November 2020 is was $2.462, in May 2008 it was $4.723, In June 1996 is was $1.179. This was a volatile market to begin with, there were clear warnings in 2008, which was 14 years ago and the 12 years before that there were more indicators. So where was the United Nations then? Where were the politicians then? So the tantrum the Guardian is giving us sounds nice, but the lack of actions is overwhelming as such we could go with the blame on ‘fossil fuel producers and financiers’ yet in all this where were the politicians, where was the media? The same media that shorted an EEA report that CLEARLY showed that 50% of ALL pollution was created by 147 facilities and I illuminated that in earlier articles, where was the Guardian at that point where its reporter was eager to blame all those jet owners? 

As such United Tony should get contemplate a decent grip on reality. 

So whilst we now see “The Guardian understands Guterres has been incensed by the recent behaviour of fossil fuel companies, which have been reaping a bonanza from energy prices sent soaring by the Ukraine war. Much of these bumper profits are likely to be invested in fresh exploration and expansion of fossil fuel resources.” All this with an earlier jab towards Saudi Arabia and the ‘need’ for President Biden to go there. Yes, there is a splinter of truth there, but the larger issues is that oil is a commodity, one many do not have and lets face it. The top three are United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. So if the US is one of the three top producers, why does it need Saudi oil? Did anyone consider THAT part of the equation? The US should have limited fossil requirements decades ago, but did they? So why is United Tony ignoring that part of the equation? And then we see the political ‘outrage’ with headlines like ‘Biden Was Always Going to Need Saudi Arabia’ and “Why Biden Needs Saudi Arabia: to produce oil and deter Iran” yet the simple truth is that Saudi Arabia needs to do what is best for Saudi Arabia and the US needs to produce more oil, or set the stage that less oil is required a simple setting that was out in the open for decades. Yet we also see a lack of actions from the United Nations and United Tony to set a clear agenda to LIMIT the need for oil. We see a lot of noise and we saw that for the longest of times, but how much ACTUAL actions were taken? Consider that one of the top three nations is appealing to Saudi Arabia to produce more. We get that he is not going to Moscow, we get that his actions are limited but this is a train-wreck from beginning to end. And the United Nations are a mere sample of Mukimono on the diner table and we need to realise this. 

So when we see “Fossil fuel firms ‘have humanity by the throat’” we want to blame, but who can we blame but our own reflection? So when people ask me ‘What did you do?’ I can say “I never bothered with a drivers license, I never owned a car. I walked nearly every day to and from public transportation” and in over half a century I only desperately needed a car LESS than a dozen times and they nearly all were part of moving day actions. Who else can make that claim? Yes, some call me Dopey for not having a car. Yet I saw people requiring $80 a week just to park the bloody thing, so who is the Dopey? Them or me?

Dependence on oil is a bad thing, but not addressing that need is worse. The politicians and people are mere junkies for the black goo. They can alter the language and give excuses but that is what a junkie does and those who wanted a solution found another way, so which nations have another solution? Yes, I reckon you will not be able to find one, even as New Zealand might be the closest to being one, it is in the same goo, just not as deep as all the other nations. 

It would have been nice for António Guterres (United Tony) to address the needy (US) the greedy (the political players) and tell the Dopey’s (the people) that the first step in addressing this problem is admitting to yourself in the mirror that you have one. Because the people are just as much to blame as anyone else. If you want to make claim that you are not the problem then leave your car at home for a week, for one week do without it. You will be surprised how many excuses you can come up with to grab the car, just like a junkie does. I feel fine, I have been without a car for half a century. So from the time we saw the Morris Marina until the Maruti Swift, I never had any of them. I get that there are times that a car is essential, we all get that, but I throw back at you that this year alone there are 1.446 billion cars, in 1970 the world had 200,000,000 cars. Over 50 years we saw a 723% growth of cars and some are essential, I get that, but 723%? We are all part of that problem, we drove the commodity of oil into the stratosphere and we are too scared (or cowardly) to admit that and the oil producing nations are having a great day, the Ukrainian war is merely an excuse. You see, 50% of that war (Russia) has its own supply and they have plenty. But that part is equally not illuminated. Why is that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,