Thursday, 9 June 2011

The enviros that really are mentalists

I refer of course to the green/eco warriors that believe all this "saving the planet/carbon-dioxide/renewable energy" clap-trap and also so-called journalists that promote all their mumbo-jumbo.

In this context we have Myra Butterworth & Rowena Mason in the Daily Telegraph with this report; whilst not to be out-done, courtesy of an email acquaintance in East Anglia, we then get, from the Norwich Evening News:

In fact Norwich seems to be embracing this mentalism with both hands:

As if this is not enough, we also have this article which relates that there is 'trouble 't mill', coupled with this report about saving carbon-dioxide emissions involving switching off street lights.

Lets take these articles in order of appearance. Butterworth and Mason write about the problem of the lack of transparency in fuel bills with the almost obligatory quotes by two politicians, Yeo and MiliE, renowned for their 'mentalist' thought processes. Yeo is a committed 'mentalist' (why else would he be chair of the Energy and Climate Change committee) and MiliE was Secretary of State for Energy in the last Brown government. Yeo, whose business interests are in the 'mentalist' field, makes no mention of the hidden surcharges within fuel bills to pay for all this 'mentalism'. As for MiliE his comment on twitter: "David Cameron should urgently meet Scottish Power to get prices down. PM needs to stop sitting idly by." is disingenious in the extreme in view of his last ministerial position. Yet these points are not even mentioned by the two Telegraph 'journalists'.

There must be something in the water, up Norwich way, when they can elect two politicians of the 'calibre-less' qualities of Simon Wright and Chloe Smith. Not one word is there in the first article about the fact that Feed-in tariffs are a cost to the fuel user. Mr Wright says "It is incredibly important that green living is affordable and available to all" - I would suggest he looks at the website of one renewable energy company (, where they state: The suppliers pass on the cost of the Feed-In Tariffs scheme to all their electricity customers. ... so the bottom line is that people who don't install renewable energy systems pay for those who do."

Of course it does not help the mentalists when a former head of the Civil Service has a pop at politicians et all, complaining that pandering to scaremongers should cease and berates politicians for the global-warming evangelism. Not that the poor political saps can do much about the problem, at least not without the agreement of those in Brussels that pull their strings.

Of course, as with most of the political elite and the positions they hold, here we have two politicians pontificating on the subject of energy when neither has any qualification so to do - aided and abetted by journalists who, no doubt, are similarly un-qualified.

Perhaps these mentalists might be more at home at Broadmoor?


DAD said...

Meanwhile in Scotland ...

microdave said...

And I wonder who will be paying when we've all got renewable energy systems??

Hypothetical question....

PeterCharles said...

If only we had ONE major petrol or power retailer who printed receipts with the tax and regulatory charges clearly showing. Example (rounded figures):

50 lts petrol £29.00
Duty £29.00
VAT £12.00

Total to pay £70.00

I have no doubt faced with reality every time they paid for something enough people would squeal loud enough that even the government would have to take notice.

But there isn't one and by their silence they are complicit in this theft.

The problem with Climate Hysteria is that everyone other than the man in the street is a winner.

The authoritarian tendency, government and government bureaucracy love it because it gives them more power and control.

Government also loves it because it is a moral excuse for raising tax and, as we see, much of that tax can be hidden and blamed on someone else.

Bankers love it because carbon credits and similar instruments will potentially generate huge profits with no outlay required.

The eco nuts love it because they're saving the world.

The science establishments love it because it is a never ending gravy train and any old off the cuff result will do, provided it says DOOM, DOOM.

Big business loves it because it means opportunity for profit generated from public money.

The developing world loves it because it hinders developed economies and boosts theirs with international subsidies.

The EU loves it because it is their chosen vehicle by which to start imposing direct taxation, after which it is only a gentle cost into the Federated States of Europe with National governments finally sidelined.

Only poor sods like you and me end up losing, until the revolution of course.

PeterCharles said...

Damn! I wish there was an edit facility

I meant to write ".... only a gentle coast ..."

Adam R. said...

One of the biggest issues I have with environmentalists is their use of language to manipulate peoples minds and in turn, policies and the markets. Here's someone that you would probably agree with on the issue of "fossil" fuels.

other sites:

A K Haart said...

There's a good piece here from the German perspective.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

D: I know, I know.......

md: thankfully it won't be me, cause I'll be long gone!


AR: Thanks for links. And where did the enviros get their ability to twist the language? From politicians of course!

AKH: Thanks to you also for the link - off to read all three.