Last year, Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s “energy and environment analyst”, retired. He tweeted as follows: “Only a month to go now before I leave BBC after 35 years. I did my last turn on Today Prog earlier. Felt very upset walking home. Not for me, but for the fate of the planet.”
On reading this, I burst out laughing. Although most journalists have delusions of grandeur, few of us think the fate of our planet turns on our individual career path.
Method actor?
“Whatever choices we make about how we heat our homes in future,” he adds, “one thing is certain, we are going to need a lot more electricity. And it all needs to be green.” His first sentence is factually correct. His second is his point of view. His confusion between the two exemplifies how the BBC has covered climate change for 20 years.
Harrabin’s successor.
More like “… we are going to need a lot more electricity. And we can’t be bothered to do that so all you peasants can freeze”
Harrabin is/was a total scientific-illiterate. Just the bloke to be the BBC’s “energy and environment guru”.
Good riddance. Problem is, doubtless his replacement will be equally, if not more, inept.
“Whatever choices we make about how we heat our homes in future, one thing is certain, we are going to need a lot more electricity”.
Nonsense. Lots of ways of heating our homes don’t need more electricity. Gas boilers, coal fires, log burners…
What this shows is that when he says “choices we make” he means decisions made by him and his pals and imposed on the rest of us.
I’ll take ‘Things That Never Happened’ for $500, Alex.
Another candidate for Mr Mencken’s throat-slitting.
@ Richard T
Alternatively, we could wear more (or even just *enough*) clothes in winter.