Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
North Sea Collision....
...and BBC gubbins. Only the beeb could turn this into a climate change report. They had "our climate change correspondent", the useless Justin Rowlatt, reporting on it. He gets money for old rope, reporting on fantasies. Twas a maritme issue. Nothing to do with the climate.
Answers
Well have a word with Justin Rowelatt ans see what he thinks of the distruction of the Amazon to build a road to the climate change summit!
https:/
"....but perceived climate impacts occur on a local basis,"
They may be perceived, Andy, but they are not real.
Those two ships and their cargoes could have both been completely consumed by fire and it would have made no difference to the climate - either locally and certainly not globally - whatsoever.
To put it into perspective, the most significant of the two in that respect was the tanker full of aviation fuel. It carried about 4.5m litres - about 1m gallons. So let’s do a few sums.
In 2024, commercial aviation consumed about 90 billion gallons of fuel globally. So if all the fuel on the tanker had been consumed (and it seems it wasn't) it would have added 0.0011% to the global aviation total.
That total itself is only 2.5% of global energy-related emissions so the burning of 1m gallons of aviation fuel would have added just 0.000028% to the global total. It is equivalent to one extra transatlantic flight by a jumbo jet every 10 days or so.
It is way beyond the confidence limits of any estimate of global emissions. In short it is of no significance whatsoever.
There is one reason and one reason only why the BBC wheeled out its “climate change editor” to report on the crash. That is because it is obsessed with the promotion of the “climate change crisis”, however tenuous or ridiculous a connection it makes to the news item. If it has a chance to suggest or infer a connection, it will.
This is a transport related story, more specifically a maritime one, plain and simple.
In the BBC 10.00 o'clock News, the aforementioned Justin Rowlatt again reported. At no point did he mention climate effects, but concentrated on potential damage to wildlife, sea birds etc. and at this stage, there is less damage than there might have been. Seemed to be a reasonable and balanced report.
But why the "Climate Chnage Editor"?
This incident has nothing to do with climate change. It wasn't caused by climate change; it will not influence climate change.
Mr Rowlatt would be better occupied investigating the destruction of the Amazon rain forest the Brazilian authorities are wreaking building a highway to facilitate "COP 30".
Thanks for all the replies folks. Maybe I should have also said that the BBC are always keen to promote climate change, as spotted by dave50, and always have the dreaded JR reporting on it. Climate change is natural. Everything associated with it being man-made, is about money, self-promotion and manipulation.
BA goes to New Judge. Thanks again.