Older, More Polluting Cars

“Older more polluting cars” has become a stock phrase of late, particularly with the storm brewing over the backdating of the road tax increases. Our dear national broadcaster used the phrase at the top of the news this morning, saying something like “Labour rebels and Conservatives are criticising the increase in tax on older more polluting cars”. This is a rather pejorative turn of phrase - why couldn’t they just say “road tax increase” or similar? It’s OK, though, I’m not going to launch into another rant about BBC bias and climate change, tempting though it is.

The arguments centre on the effects of the increase on poorer drivers and families, and rightly so, but in addition the blanket assumption that older cars are more polluting is wrong. My first car was 1961 Triumph Herald convertible. I doubt it had particularly clean emissions. “Aha!” says the tree-hugger, “it’s an older, more polluting car!” Er, no, because it used to go out fairly occasionally, and so contributed less CO2 in a typical year than my everyday (then) new Golf. Yet even if it wasn’t a second car, the most significant way in which my old Triumph was less polluting was that it was an older car – i.e. it was still on the road. Cars have the greatest impact on the environment when they are made, and when they are scrapped. Even when the old girl does come to the end of her life, as an older car with less plastics, no catalytic converter, no coolant filled air con system, and not much of anything else, most of the car will be easily recyclable steel.

Now, I concede that the Herald would be exempt from road tax anyway (though for how long?), and in any case is an extreme example (the road tax increase are only being backdated to 2001 cars) but the blind assumption that older cars are the chariot of the devil is one that should be challenged, if only on the main point that looking after an older car and keeping it on the road is the best thing an owner can do for the environment.

Of course, in truth the road tax changes have nothing to do with the environment – after all, what would they be trying to achieve? Clearly we can’t turn back time to not purchase the vehicles, so it must be trying to force us to take older cars off the road, which means in most cases scrapping them, and generating demand for new ones to be built - a double whammy for the environment. Yet surely Alistair Darling couldn’t be using the “climate change agenda” as an excuse just to raise environmentally irrelevant taxes?

FreakWatch

We must be getting into Summer: BBC’s Springwatch and C4’s Big Brother are now in full swing.

So, you can watch a collection of various oddities of nature using a combination of hidden cameras and expert analysis all for your entertainment.

Or you can switch over to the BBC and see SpringWatch.

Harrumphreys Indignation Makes Good Radio

A gold star this morning to Daniel Kawczynski MP who appeared on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme ostensibly to talk about his idea for a bank holiday to recognise the contribution of Poles to British life. On the face of it, and so it must have seemed to the producers of Today, a good liberal piece in the usual immigration-is-good-for-society vein.

Kawczynski, however, while making the case for his idea, then delivered a series of left right hooks to John Humphrys, who could be heared harrumphing indignantly in the background. Daniel, you see, had emerged from his Trojan Horse to complain about the “liberal elite” at the BBC who seem to use Polish immigration - “white Christians” as he pointed out - to highlight immigration as an issue instead of talking more about the majority of (non-white) immigrant peoples, which might lead the BBC down a more controversial and less politically correct path of analysis. Kawczynski suggested that such coverage has led to an increase in racist attacks on Poles.

To hear Humphreys almost audibly choking on his piety quite made my morning, and it might yours too. Listen again here, the interview is around 2hrs 24m in.

They’re At it Again

Blast by Pakistan Danish embassy

No, not the dodgy headline writing by our national broadcaster (how can an embassy cause a blast? Where is Pakistan Denmark?) but those who think that the appropriate response to a few pen marks on paper is to try and kill the artist’s countrymen.

It has reminded me that I have been rather remiss in not adding the appropriate graphic to my sidebar.

Eurovision’s Coming

Ah, Eurovision. Who needs by-elections when you get all the excitement of an early hours election count, but combined with cheesy music and thinly veiled medieval tribalism to boot?

Now I know it’s a joke over here. After all, if anyone has any real talent they have half the global music industry based in the U.K. to pick them up and make a few bob out of them, but to our neighbours beyond the White Cliffs, Eurovision is where it’s at.

Even so, it’s good old fashioned patriotism and racial brotherhood that is more than a passing factor in the Eurovision voting, especially since nowadays it’s all done by the viewers.

The trouble for Eurovision itself is that the major broadcasters, such as the BBC, make significant contributions to the running of the contest, in return for which the British acts get a free pass to the finals. Without the likes of Auntie, the thing would possibly collapse.

Now I am not a fan of Pop Factor, X Idol, Britain’s Got (No) Talent or any of the other reality talent shows, but I suspect, judging by their popularity, Eurovision would still garner some audience over here. I’ll be honest, though, if it wasn’t for Terry Wogan liberally pouring on the sarcasm, it just wouldn’t do it for me – and a good few others I suspect. Sadly, it’s a fact of life that Ol’ Tel won’t be around forever, and unless they can replace him with the likes of, say, Jack Dee or Bill Bailey, then that’s it for me. So if Terry goes, it will dent the audience, which makes it a bit harsh for the director of Eurovision television to complain about the tone of the Togmeister’s coverage. Of course, to be the boss of Eurovision I guess you have to take the thing unnaturally seriously, but does he not realise that without Terry, he might lose one of his major stakeholders? (Actually, he probably doesn’t care: he knows that the BBC, being just a teensy bit pro-European in its outlook, would probably still find the cash somewhere milk the licence payer for the necessary.)

So, where was I going with this? Ah yes, the voting. As a low-ranking psephological anorak, I have given some passing thought to how to sort out the Eurovision voting. Eurovision should be taking the voting problem more seriously because sooner or later, some of the old Europe nations, who do still think the Eurovision is where it’s at, will get fed up and take their balls with them.

Here’s my solution: regional finals, followed by the main final where each country still votes as at present, except they are barred from voting for their region’s entry – in the same way that they cannot vote for their own country’s entry now. That would put paid to the Balkans, Baltics or Scandinavians voting for each other. The sticking point would be drawing up the regions to be roughly equal in number of countries. We could take advantage here and do the football/rugby thing and send up four separate entries (or maybe six, including CI and IOM) – so we could possibly scrape together a British Isles region.

Anyway, problem solved. Next!

BBC Bias Rant no. 42

Sorry - another whinge from me about the BBC. (Well, why shouldn’t I? I pay my compulsory BBC subscription licence fee.)

Radio 4’s six o’clock news last night (listen again, about 29 mins in) was covering Gordon Ramsey’s comments about seasonal and locally sourced food. BBC environment correspondent Roger Harrabin was explaining the issues - because clearly we couldn’t work them out for ourselves. In his view, there were some problems:

1. Any ban would quite possibly be unworkable, e.g. seasonal where? and how local?

2. The “moral issue”, which encompassed the ubiquitous nod to climate change (though pointing out that only a tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions are generated by food transported from Africa) and also the point that such a restriction of trade would hurt producers in poorer parts of the world (a fair point, actually).

And that was it, other than the statement that the economists’ answer would be to tax carbon. Which economists exactly? Just the ones the BBC tends to use, I suspect.

See what was missing? Of course, there was no mention of consumers making their own choices over where their food comes from. Individual freedom and all that. Hard to believe that the BBC, an organisation funded by a mechanism that gives its consumers no choice, could miss that one *cough*.

Update: Welcome to friends and others from Biased BBC.

The BBC - It’s What They Do

I see Croydonian had a rant in the early hours about the BBC coverage of the elections. I would like to tug his hymn sheet in my direction a bit, so that I may join in.

My preset list of favourite channels on my TV does not include BBC News 24 since I prefer the balanced/less biased coverage of Sky, but last night I did use the picture in picture feature (what will they think of next) to hop regularly between the two.

Jeremy Vine, who normally provides my cue to switch over when his patronising and condescending tones contaminate Radio 2, appeared with some ape-to-homo-sapiens graphics to illustrate the increase in the Conservative (though he probably referred to us as “Torieees”) vote over the last ten years. What was wrong with a good old bar chart?

Then I noticed that, of course, Anthony King had been dusted off and wheeled out to join the panel. The Worcester result (still NOC) came through. A minor minor disappointment in a very very good night for the Conservatives, but King was quick to cut in “A very bad result for the Conservatives, they were expected to take that easily” – or words to that effect. Maybe he was right, but his past form shows that he is happiest using his “expert” soapbox to spin the “Tories are crashing and burning” whenever possible.

Why do the BBC allow such a clearly biased yet officially impartial observer on the air?

It’s OK - I’m only kidding - that wasn’t a serious question.

In the interest of balance, though, I preferred the BBC’s convention of declaring gains/losses based on a comparison to the council make-up on the morning of polling day, rather than what happened four years ago, a la Sky, but that still doesn’t justify the Beeb extorting their subscription from me licence fee.

Update: I missed Vine’s farcical performance referred to by Mike Smithson … fortunately.

Who’da Thunk It?

From the respected Jane’s last week (hat tip Samizdata):

Evidence emerges of Iran’s continued nuclear weapons research Documents shown exclusively to Jane’s indicate that Iran is continuing its pursuit of the advanced technologies necessary to develop a nuclear weapon, regardless of Tehran’s claims that its nuclear programme is purely peaceful. Jane’s was shown the information by a source connected to a Western intelligence service, and the documents were verified by a number of reliable independent sources in Vienna.

Presumably with all the earth-shattering events of the last few days(?), the BBC is still to run this story, in contrast to the fanfare of a few months ago when intelligence services told us that Iran was a paradise of love, peace and freedom where the nuclear research was aimed only at keeping the air conditioning on in the fluffy bunnies’ cages.

(And of course these weren’t the same intelligence services that got it so wrong about another alleged clutch of weapons of mass destruction.)
As Samizdata’s Dale Amon neatly sums it up … who’da thunk it?

Mrs T is still alive

From the BBC reporter outside Baroness Thatcher’s hospital:

“Is it serious? Well, you have to face facts - she arrived by car, not in an ambulance.”

Yes, that is verbatim.

A note of disappointment there from the BBC perhaps?

Kicking ‘em When They’re Up

A major player in British industry, and more importantly the global energy markets, has done well last year. It has made big profits.

The Beeb reports:

Energy supplier British Gas has reported annual profits of £571m at its residential arm, up from £95m in 2006.

Last month, British Gas said it would raise the amount it charges for gas and electricity by 15%, a move criticised by consumer groups and the Unite union.

Did I say just “profits”? I meant big evil stamp-on-the-workers-and-kick-an-elderly-pensioner-while-you’re-at-it profits.

The announcement followed increases from rivals Npower and EDF Energy, who blamed rising wholesale costs.
The news came as Centrica, British Gas’ parent company, reported a 40% rise in operating profits to £1.95bn.
…
It has called for a Competition Commission investigation into the way the energy market works.

So the wholesale market prices that all energy companies have to pay go up and … shock horror … the domestic energy suppliers prices go up. Conspiracy!

“Consumers will be shocked at this massive increase in profits,” said Tim Wolfenden from price comparison service Uswitch.
“They will be extremely disappointed and will start voting with their feet.”

Exactly. British Gas no longer has the state-sponsored monopoly it had as a nationalised industry, where it was answerable only to civil servants.

Centrica has increased its full-year dividend to shareholders by 17% to 13 pence a share, a move criticised by consumer group Energywatch.

“It is perfectly true that there is volatility in wholesale energy markets. But it seems equally true that such volatility hits consumers not shareholders,” said Adam Scorer, Energywatch’s director of campaigns.

OK. Let’s take this slowly for the financial newbies at Energywatch. A decent rate of dividend makes it easier to raise finance. When a company can raise finance it can invest in new technology, more efficient processes, expanding the business, and so on.

In fact, I have been beaten to it:

In a BBC interview, Centrica chief executive Sam Laidlaw said the company would use the profits to reduce the UK’s growing reliance on imported gas.

“We need to earn a return to invest in new sources of energy for the UK. Centrica is investing £1bn a year in new sources of gas and power… and all of that requires a return,” Mr Laidlaw said.

In other words, if you want the UK to be less dependent on Vladimir Putin’s mental state, the major player in the energy market needs to be able to invest. Oh, and need I point out that your pension fund probably has, or has had in the recent past, or soon will have, shares in Centrica?

It genuinely tires me to be doing another “lefty BBC” post, but it has to be done. At the end of the online article, we are asked the question:

Are you a British Gas customer? Do you think they are putting profits before customers?

“Putting profits before customers”. That phrase encapsulates the lefty worldview of how business works. Yet the only business that can sustainably put profits before customers is a monopoly, and most monopolies are kept that way by the state in one form or another. It may be a nationalised monopoly, which has to keep civil servants and ministers happy but not customers. Or, it may be a company protected from new competition by state regulation – which the same company has supported, not surprisingly – the costs of which invariably fall on either the customer, taxpayer or both. Either way, competition – and thus the interests of the customer - is not something the business in question has to worry about.

Most businesses however, and this now includes British Gas/Centrica, cannot make profits without customers, and if they abuse those customers they don’t make the profits? How much clearer can I put that?

Oh but of course, the BBC is one of those nationalised monoliths that generates revenue regardless of how happy its customers are. Takes one to know one, I guess.

In answer to Auntie Beeb’s question, though, surely if you said “yes” to the second question, you cannot have said “yes” to the first?

Oh, and for those who still believe that most taxes go to pay for schoolz’n’ospitals, Centrica’s preliminary results for 2007 (pdf, 0.30Mb) show a corporation tax provision of over £800 million. And that’s ignoring oil duties, VAT, Employer’s NIC on the thousands of employees … need I go on?