‘Coal is Evil’. Linear Debate of Green Issues is leading Us Astray.

From my “those who want to save the planet, actually want to destroy it” department comes an article by Arthur Scargill. I watched him as a teenager facing down the forces that were closing down the British coal industry. It’s only now that I’m understanding the importance of what was happening then.

It’s not Scargill who wants to destroy the planet, far from it. It’s some of the Green campaigners who seem to think that now they have their big important cause that they can block up their ears and ignore any criticism. They think they can ignore history.

Some campaigners recently protested by trying to hold up a delivery of coal to a power station. Some may be jailed for Life. A little harsh if you ask me. I admire their commitment, but ultimately, I don’t think they are listening to the debate properly.

Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill presented evidence at the Windscale Sizewell and Hinckley Point public enquiry. A presentation that showed that Nuclear is 400% more expensive than coal. That showed that Nuclear received 6 billion in subsidies, with 70 billion in decommissioning costs. But I suppose the past has been forgotten. It’s almost like the 80’s no longer exist. Maybe that was the point as the little I can find out about the inquiry shows that is was overly voluminous and maybe deliberately confusing, as is so often the case with the Nuclear Industry.

Mr Scargill states that there are 1000 years of Coal reserves on this Island (UK) from which can be produced Gas and and Petrol. But far from acting like some socialist stallwart calling for a return to blackened faces and smog, he describes an integrated energy policy that includes wind and wave power that makes financial sense. Nuclear is expensive and unworkable. This was proved in the 80’s. Far from being the “cheap” alternative to Coal it has left us in the position of having to import 43m tonnes of coal per year.

It has also left us in the position of having the increased CO2 levels even after ending the use of Coal. Why ? According to Scargill it’s because 80% of emissions come unscrubbed Oil and Gas. CO2 scrubbing and removal at a coal power station would greatly reduce those emissions. Of course all that imported Oil and Gas is certainly not scrubbed of CO2. I can see where he’s coming from. We’re painting ourselves into a corner ! So paralysed by political correctness and Green chique that we can no longer think anymore. To mention Coal is like lighting up a cigarrete at a health convention. We could be using it from British ground rather than importing resources from dodgy regimes and sources. Is’nt this common sense ? Sanity ? But instead we insist on tying ourselves up in knots to be able to reduce CO2. Well, it’s not is it ? The problem is made worse.

Does anyone remember the “Edge of Darkness” series ? There is so often a darkness that is allowed to exist because not enough people apply logical thinking and use their instincts. Have some people become so cynical that these forces of darkness are allowed to get their way ? There is another industry where this is allowed to happen. The Pharmaceutical Industry.

“It seems that evil retreats when it is forcibly confronted…”.

A quote from Star Trek. I’m not sure which episode. My point is that some people say the “world is a dangerous place”, or become cynical about stopping nasty things from happening. Yet it’s not the evil that is the problem but the fact that some people seem to have forgotten that they have the power to fight it. Is this why not many people will confront the evils of the Pharma industry ? Or face reality in the green debate ? Have some people become so cowed and powerless that doing good and fighting evil is not “hip” any more? How sad. How eviscerating of the human spirit. Empty.

The Green lobby have already made an enormous “F up” to put no finer point on it. With biofuel we now know that it leads to food shortages and starvation. A product of wooly thinking and an inability to face reality. So where are the apologies ? The demands for change in Green thinking ? I don’t see them. It seems like some people would rather the issue go away than face it, so they can move onto the next disaster. I don’t want to tar everyone with the same brush. There have been major green victories. Areas of Rainforest saved, chemicals banned, but the issues needs debating … properly, takng into account all view points.

DJ Barney