The current furore surrounding the IPCC’s latest report on the potential of renewable energy has been extensively covered in the MSM and on the blogosphere. The interesting part is the almost universally uncritical reporting in the MSM, and the virtually total opposite on the blogosphere. The reason for the latter is simple:
As James Delingpole observes, the article turns out to have been lead-authored by an activist from Greenpeace and based not on solid science but a wish-fulfilment fantasy scenario devised by Greenpeace.
Here’s what Christopher Booker has to say today:
-
“What only came to light when the full report was published last week was the peculiar source of this extraordinarily ambitious claim. It was based solely on a paper co-authored last year by an employee of Greenpeace International and something called the European Renewable Energy Council. This Brussels-based body, heavily funded by the EU, lobbies the European Commission on behalf of all the main renewable industries, such as wind and solar. The chief author of the Greenpeace paper, Sven Teske, was also a lead author on Chapter 10 of the IPCC report, which means that the report’s headline message came from a full-time environmental activist, supported by a lobby group representing those industries that stand most to benefit financially from its findings.”


The European Renewable Energy Council is taxpayer-funded
In my blog yesterday I referred to a posting by Christopher Booker and included a quote from it which in turn included the following:
“It was based solely on a paper co-authored last year by an employee of Greenpeace International and something called the European Renewable Energy Council. This Brussels-based body, heavily funded by the EU, lobbies the European Commission on behalf of all the main renewable industries, such as wind and solar. “
I was intrigued by this organisation the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and started doing some digging. Well, what a filthy, stinking mess!
Read more...»