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.
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.
There is a truth in the expression “The worst is yet to come”, that is a truth that has been around longer than I have been alive. The setting that things can be worse than they are now is a reflection of positivity. Things are not at it worst, but what happens when that part is around the corner? It is a very real danger we now face and even as 600 journalists are digging into the Pandora papers, trying to create click bitches, all whilst we get (source: BBC) “There is no suggestion that either the Qatari family or the sellers of the two properties acted illegally”, what a waste of space have these people become? All whilst there is still the stage of setting up the billionaires for a ‘tax the rich’ scenario. The tax laws were never overhauled (for over 20 years), we get pollution stories and how rich people should not use their private jets, but the report of the European Environmental Agency setting a clear stage that 147 facilities are reason for 50% of ALL POLLUTION, how much longer will you get played?
And I need to keep with the true reason, the reason why I state the worst is almost here. For those who were addicted to Game of Thrones there is a saying that applies ‘Winter is Coming!’ And there lies the real rub. This we get from several sources.
First the Dutch NOS, who gives us (at https://nos.nl/l/2400511) ‘Another strong increase in gas price, already eight times as expensive as a year ago’, plenty of Dutch houses and apartments rely on Gas for cooking and heating and consider that the price for that has gone up 800% in ONE YEAR. And they are not alone.
Sky News offers (at https://news.sky.com/story/surging-wholesale-energy-prices-add-to-inflation-pressures-as-firms-call-for-emergency-help-12426926) “The British day-ahead contract for natural gas hit 277p per therm, 32% higher than Monday and surpassing the 275p per therm level seen during the “Beast from the East” weather system in 2018”, with a larger setting. Consider your heating in December-March when it is 30% more expensive. A stage I foresaw in ‘A fence is for fencing’, an article I wrote on January 17th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/01/17/a-fence-is-for-fencing/) and at the time there were some statements of utter negativity when I gave the readers “the UK (aka United Kingdom) has a problem, it is coming up short to a much larger degree with energy and that will go on 3-5 years at the very least.” Personally, I had hoped there would be more time, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. And when we add another article by the Dutch NOS giving us (at https://nos.nl/l/2400494) ‘EU summit on high energy prices, such as in Italy: ‘I hold my breath’’ where we learn that households can no longer afford the energy bills. The NOS makes mention of Slovenia and Italy, so how about the other nations? We the the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, but what about Poland, Estonia, Czech Republic, and Finland? Sweden has Vattenfal, yet as the Swedes need more, the UK will end up with less and I wonder how that will impact Norway. The bulk of the media is not on board is it? But at least we get the Pandora papers with no top-line reference and articles that give us “there is no suggestion that either the Qatari family or the sellers of the two properties acted illegally”, yes we really needed that, especially after ignored articles on the EEA and lame pushes for billionaire jets. Yes, it all makes sense to some people (stakeholders) yet does it make sense to you? So whilst Italy pays 30% more for electricity and 14% more for gas, I wonder how much reporting will happen in the next month whilst we get pandora article after Pandora article. If there were reporting of ACTUAL criminal activities it would be different, but a mention of ‘could’ is a waste of energy and this is not 1 journalist, in this case we see mention of 600 journalists, so you tell me, how useless have ego driven journalists become?
And that whilst the worst is almost here, there is a winter coming and this winter people will sing around the Christmas tree on how they are freezing. And when too many people decide to burn their Christmas tree in the living room just to stop shivering to enjoy their new version of a Christmas meal there is every chance that some houses will catch fire, so how many need to catch fire for the London Fire brigade to give up? You think I am kidding? Then do the math and see how many people in Europe will get by, merely get by because that list is dwindling down fast. A stage I personally never saw coming and a stage the media is not loudly reporting on. Yes, I am giving you some links, but the people in Europe should get several articles EVERY DAY in pretty much EVERY EU nation, is that happening?
You tell me!
A stage that is sliding by whilst the media is doing their click bitch act. Fell free to disagree, that is fair enough and your right, but consider on what you do not get to see when the larger papers should ALL have been on this page and they are not, why is that?
To add spice to the equation, the ONE sale of arms to Saudi Arabia would have settled the energy requirements for all people in the UK for well over two years. So when the cold is getting to you feel free to thank all those Tea Nannies of the CAAT. In the cold high moral issues are so much better to swallow, high moral settings that are not wrong, but as others take over it was a mere laughing matter in the eyes of the new delivery parties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
All settings that are open to interpretations and you might not agree. I get that and that is fine, but what option remains? In the mean time, as my mind was racing over all things bright beautiful and in the past, it also gave me a new idea for TV, a setting that starts with the protagonist/antagonist to set the stage to circumvent the US Secret service to complete an assassination, but to what end? When you consider a few items you might figure it out, but that would be mean of me, I have written over 2000 articles, yet there is a larger setting, what happens when any assassination is merely a small cog in a decently complex timepiece? What is the station when it is about specific cogs? Precision is a stage we often overlook and when we consider what the connections were between two parties, we tend to look at the big wigs which makes sense, but what happens when the cog is Marty Walsh? What happens when we take the United States Secretary of Labor out of the equation? Do not worry, he is a mere example. Can’t give away the story at this point, but the premise still stands. We are all about the big people and the media is about heralding (according to their stakeholders), so what happens when the play is larger and the people thinking that they decide the play are played the fool card?
But even as the people understand the card, what side was the one that mattered? It is more than Faith versus Judgement. It is a stage of understanding based on what we were given, what we trusted. A stage that the media themselves changed, and at times I wonder when they decide to catch on regarding what they are doing.
And at this point, I took another look at the front page of the BBC, we see a whole row of Pandora papers articles, like the Blairs saving £312,000 stamp duty, yet there is no stage that they did anything wrong or illegal, and that list goes on, yet the energy bills are not making the front page, why? Not important enough? Sky News gives us “The cap, which affects around 15 million families on standard variable deals with their suppliers, has already just gone up by 12% adding a typical £139 to dual fuel bills”, at this point I ask You tell me, what was more important, one person avoiding a bill totally legal the other setting a dangerous premise to 15,000,000 families. Take your time, I am not going anywhere and in Australia summer is starting, so days of 30-42 degrees will be our Christmas feast to endure.
Yes, today is another day to look at the media BS and in this case the BBC. Now, let’s be clear, in this specific case they are optionally not deceiving you, but they are part of the problem and not part of the solution (as I personally see it). The article ‘Climate change: Consumer ‘confusion’ threatens net zero homes plan’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58306288) sounds nice but they are painting with one brush, a massively large one and they are tinkering towards what I personally expect to be the needs of stakeholders.
You see, I gave you a few parts (again) in ‘Ignored by media’ a week ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/08/19/ignored-by-media/). That pesky European Environment Agency gave a report a little over 6 months ago that showed us clearly (in their way) that 50% of ALL pollution came from 147 facilities, I even added their graphics. Did any of these media courtesans give us that? Did they clearly oppose it with reasons? No, they did none of that. No, they are giving us “efforts to curb emissions from millions of homes in the UK will be at risk”, so whilst we see the BS arrangement to give us “they need the right information and tools, particularly when it comes to adapting their home. “By getting things right now, the government can give people the confidence to make changes and play their part in getting to net zero.”” Which sounds nice and I get that part, but in all this we see the spending by millions of households whilst 50% of the problem is given to us by 147 facilities, so 147 facilities against millions of households, in addition the media to the largest extent has not now, NOT EVER, dug into that lit of 147 facilities and gave us the lit of 147 players and started their name and shame game (I reckon that involved stakeholders will not allow for that). So whilst the BBC is reporting “offers financial support such as grants, low-cost loans and financing”, and I apologise so pardon my French, so where the fuck is that list of 147 facilities, the amounts of taxation paid by the people behind these 147 facilities and how much non taxable funds they are making? Now, we should understand that these facilities might not (most likely are not) be in the UK or Europe, but in the age of the media giving us ‘the people have a right to know’ I reckon that the people should be allowed that part of the equation too, or not?
So whilst the BBC gives us boldly “Government plans to decarbonise homes are too complicated and confusing, according to a coalition of consumer and industry groups”, why are they not going over that list of 147 facilities and make sure that those facilities are fined so that we all get time and funds to do our side? So when we are given “The carbon generated by home heating amounts to about 20% of all UK emissions”, all whilst we see that several media players are ignoring “50% of ALL pollution comes from 147 facilities” are you not equally wondering why environmental reporters are largely ignoring the EEA report?
It makes me wonder who Matt McGrath is catering too, do you not agree to this? In all this Matt is not completely wrong with his article, but the setting is not that small, it has not be that small for well over a decade and when we see the links to ‘Climate change: Europe’s extreme rains made more likely by humans’ and ‘Nature crisis: Talks resume on global plan to protect biodiversity’ you might notice something, I did. You see in these two articles the word ‘pollution’ is seen once. It is seen in the second article in the quote “the nations of the world failed to fully meet any of the 20 targets which included protecting coral reefs and tackling pollution”, all this whilst the EEA report does not get mentioned, not once. In a day and age where the headlines are about ‘biodiversity’ and ‘extreme rains’, yet pollution and the 147 facilities are out of range (read out of expected bounds).
So what alleged stakeholder is making a speculated fortune by allegedly arranging the media not to take a deep and informative look at the EEA report? Which so called journalist dug into the data the EEA has, where the 147 facilities were and which of the remaining 14178 could get its pollution damage smothered (by a lot)?
These are questions that are out in the open and yes, that is not up to the BBC to fix, yet the utter silence of that part is up to the BBC and they need to be starting to ask the difficult questions. Yes they cannot give all the answers, but in this stage no one is asking the questions that matter, I will let you figure out which is worse.
So enjoy the polluted air and remember, Amazon sells gas masks ranging from $30 to $150, be weary you might need one in the near future and if you see the BS people attacking others on their freedom of choice for not wearing a face mask, I wonder how they will react to the choice between gas mask and breathing (no more). That is in the end the second option, if we let the 35% of all stupid people of the population die, pollution and carbon emissions will be reduced as well, the scales of balance will not care and if one solution will not work, the other one remains. Life can at times be that simple.