North Sea Collision....

[10ClarionSt]

...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. 

[DDIL]

It would make sense to have a climate change correspondent report on it, the ship was on fire for over 48 hours, its carrying hazerdous materials that could seriously affect surround climate.

[ToraToraTora]

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://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1891333.html

 

[naomi24]

The BBC report that I saw spoke about the potential negative impact on wild life which is fair enough.

[dave50]

Almost every news item report on the BBC they manage to squeeze in climate change.  They are obsessed. 

[andy-hughes]

If something impacts on the climate, and this incident does, then referring to that impact is legitimate reporting.

If it was done to the exclusion of any other analysis, that would be unacceptable, but it wasn't.

[Old_Geezer]

A single incident will not affect the whole globe that much. Locally it's a disaster, but it'll depend on how much can be avoided now the collision has occurred.

[andy-hughes]

OG - // A single incident will not affect the whole globe that much. Locally it's a disaster, but it'll depend on how much can be avoided now the collision has occurred. //

That's true - but perceived climate impacts occur on a local basis, as well as a global one, hence the reportage here.

[New Judge]

"....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.

[douglas9401]

The reporter was desperately trying to see the incident from shore last night, "just beyond that grassy knoll" then peering through a camera at the same height as his head while someone pasted in an image back at Beeb  Towers.

[fripfrip]

Well said New Judge,the report i saw said that most of the aviation fuel would evaporate into the atmosphere.

[perseverer]

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.

[New Judge]

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".

[perseverer]

In the report I referred to there was no mention of climate editor (although that does seem to be his official title.)

[10ClarionSt]

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.