IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!!

One of our regular correspondents has been telling us about a day he spent at a documentary production company back in the 90s. The head of that independent documentary company had previously been in charge of the BBC's Panorama slot, and he freely admitted that the editorial team at Panorama would say: "Right - who are we going to get, this week?"

This week, Panorama "got" renewables. Specifically, offshore windfarms. And boy, have they stirred up a hornet's nest!

First fact: the Panorama programme modelled its argument on an energy report drawn up by KPMG. This report has not been published yet, and there is some doubt as to whether or not it will be (see: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2123108/wind-power-sector-slams-flawed-kpmg-energy-report). The KPMG report seems to have argued that renewables will force energy bills up, leading to increased levels of fuel poverty, and that new nuclear and gas-fired power stations would be cheaper.

This is a very odd claim, and one wonders whether KMPG's findings are in any way related to the fact that it has recently secured lucrative employment advising the Russian gas giant Gazprom on its gas pipeline exporting gas to Western Europe (http://www.globalgastransport.info/archive.php?id=2358). Or, to put it another way, while a company is making money out of a Russian gas pipeline, can that same company be trusted not to try and push gas as the "best" form of electricity generation in the UK?

It's a valid question, because Ofgem currently recognises that no less than 56% of the average consumer's bill is based on the cost of wholesale gas. In other words, half of your energy bills cover the costs of importing the gas which is burned to create electricity. That cost is set to rise, probably dramatically, as international demand for gas grows (in Japan, for example, where their nuclear embarrassment has led to a "dash for gas"). Already, wholesale gas prices for this winter are 40% higher than they were last winter, and those costs will be passed on directly to the consumer.

By contrast, renewables (that's ALL renewables, not just wind) account for no more than £20 per year on the average bill for domestic energy use. The average domestic gas bill, meanwhile, increased by roughly £170 last year. So which is the most expensive source for electricity, at least as far as the consumer is concerned? Well, it's gas, obviously.

Which KPMG are trying to argue is "cheaper" than renewables.

Go figure.

Second fact: the Panorama programme was presented by Tom Heap, who happily describes himself as an "Eco-Sceptic" (http://tomheap.com/?page_id=196). In plain English, this means that Tom Heap does not much care for environmentalists or anyone who is growing increasingly concerned about climate change and our irresponsible attitudes towards sustainability. In this, Heap seems to be at odds with the global scientific consensus and the International Energy Agency, which is now warning that we are rapidly running out of time to deal with the terrifying problems of climate change (http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2123758/world-headed-irreversible-climate-change-iea-warns). In the face of these scientific warnings, Heap's one-sided approach to pressing issues is astonishingly irresponsible.

Usually, the BBC is constrained by the slightly difficult concept of "balance". It is this very "balance" which often confuses important debates - for example, even though the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and it's probably down to humankind's activities, the rules of "balance" mean that some crackpot has to be interviewed to represent the opposing viewpoint of a tiny and deluded minority.

But Heap didn't bother with balance at all in his Panorama puff-piece for the fossil fuel industries (gas and nuclear). Not one activist, campaigner, expert, representative, lobbyist or scientist was allowed to argue the case for renewables. Not one.

So - a reporter who does like the green movement bases a totally one-sided piece based on a skewed report written (but not yet published) by an accountancy firm with an interest in fossil fuels. In the circumstances, there's hardly any wonder that Heap and the Panorama team did not dare to interview anyone from the pro-renewables side of the argument. If they had, the "reporter" and his silly claims would have been made to look extremely stupid. But, as we've noted elsewhere, the anti-renewables loonies don't like debate. It scares them. If you trying to defend an indefensible position, do not open it up for debate. Simples.

Fortunately, it looks like many individuals, groups and organisations are preparing detailed complaints to the BBC over this outrageously lousy piece of reporting. The question is, will it make the slightest bit of difference? The BBC has colluded in a rather blatant attempt to shackle the UK energy consumer to a generation source that is not renewable, will only go up in cost and will do nothing to help curb global warming - and for whose benefit?

Answer: KPMG and its clients, of course.