The Streisand Effect strikes again and by question I meant "It's a really clear infograph - no?"
I am trying (sometimes failing) to stay away from climate type debates, things won't happen in my lifetime and I don't have kids, so it's fine. Main reason I posted was wondering why it is in the humour thread.
Ah, I think I see what you are on about.
Well, the clarity
of the infograph is part of the joke, you see, and the whole thing would seem to have everything to do with environmental protection and corporate greed
, and nothing to do with any "climate type debates".
The publication of the infograph and its subsequent removal was a very informative and a highly amusing LOL moment for me, as it was a typical Streisand Effect and perhaps a good example of "foot-in-mouth" syndrome - because the available alternatives
to the Hinkley Point C nclear power station in the infograph are all clearly infeasible.
So? Well, that's a bonus in the joke - being the hilarity that there is no coal-fired generation given as an alternative on the infograph.
Why no coal-fired generation option? Because, well, the Brits succumbed to green pressure (not "environmental" pressure) and adopted a policy to not build
any more coal-fired power stations - as had the Germans, I gather (though they have since sensibly started building them again at a great rate of knots). Thus leaving the Brits with the only feasible option as being nuclear power.
It would have been a no-brainer.
There is also, of course, gas (from fracking) - which, together with nuclear, the environmentalist James Lovelock pointed out some time ago
as being the way to go.
James Lovelock: The UK should be going mad for fracking
Scientist James Lovelock is the man behind Gaia theory, and once predicted doom for our climate. He discusses nuclear (good), wind power (bad) and why fracking is the future.
It's an ironic situation really, because the only available options to nuclear that are left become "the elephant in the room" - i.e., so-called "renewable" energy, that the REA would clearly rather no-one mentioned or publicised, and which is so big that it was literally filling up that infograph.
Why was it filling up the infograph so much? Because DECCA had effectively been hobbled (or had hobbled themselves) under corporate (REA) green pressures so that they hadn't left themselves with any other viable options.
It's a bit like tying your shoelaces together and then wondering why you keep falling over when you try to walk.
It's also a bit of an own goal for the REA if you think about it.
"Please make it so that we can't be seen to have successfully created an oligopoly over the energy sector that forces infeasible, highly cost-ineffective and highly damaging (economically and environmentally) power supply systems on to the taxpayers/consumers, because it is highly profitable to us."
It's a HUGE
business, and the pigs are all feeding at the same huge taxpayer-funded "green subsidies" trough. Even the Royal Family are hypocritically cashing in on it - e.g., here
Personally, and as a keen environmentalist and a rationalist, I can actually understand this from several angles and see it as both a very funny and a very ironic joke, but I can also understand that some people might not be able or might not wish to see it thus and why the REA in particular might wish to conceal the elephant. Yet the elephant wouldn't have looked quite so big if there had been more power supply generation options/alternatives in the infograph, but there weren't because they had already been pushed out, cuckoo-like by the corporate (REA) green lobbies. So they effectively created the elephant that they now do not want you to see.
It really is a very, very big elephant and, once seen, you cannot "unsee" it. Priceless.