Blog
01.March 2008 - 05:06
In the need of a little break?
Last week, Minister Mauri Pekkarinen contemplated the energy discussion that is taking place in Finland. The debate started in Brussels when he called it misguidance to think that Finland’s energy needs could be satisfied by “saying no to additional nuclear power, the new opportunities of peat as a transport fuel, as well as additional hydropower”.
The news commentary criticised the minister for his colourful use of language. “Is the pressure becoming too rough? Does the minister need a break? Did he get a teacher’s fit?” were the suggestions of a reporter at a radio broadcast the morning after. Pekkarinen, in his turn, wondered why he is not allowed to criticise sometimes, while everyone has the right to criticise his output.
Good question. The problem appeared to be that Pekkarinen’s critique was directed towards an actor, the criticising of which the Finnish journalist circles have not been used to. Essentially, he was criticising the energy agenda of environmental organisations and the fact that the inconsistency that presented itself had not been questioned for pretty much anything. “Slice-thinking” drives us towards bankruptcy, but who will notice?
The energy rhetoric of environmental organisations and the Greens feature two basic mistakes. The first mistake is mixing up the plant’s capacity factor and the produced electric energy that is derived from it. Recognising the difference between kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt-hours (kWh) should be the first requirement for an honest energy discussion.
Would the citizens not deserve to know that the amount of electricity derived from wind power is about a fourth compared to nuclear power, even though the capacity could be the same at some point in the future?
Another mistake is the inconsistency of the arguments. For instance, when speaking of the energy-saving potential the organisations often overestimate the energy consumption, which leads to the fact that the saving potential appears higher than it is in reality. When speaking of how realistic the renewable energy target is, the same number suddenly does not work as a starting point. In this case, the rise in energy consumption is belittled to prove that the renewable energy target is easily achievable.
Greenpeace recently explained its anti-nuclear stance by the fact that nuclear power produces electricity only and 90% of Finland’s climate emissions are caused by sectors whose emissions cannot be influenced by changing energy production only. However, the organisation itself does not apply the same logic to its own favourite, i.e. wind power, which also only produces electricity – whilst using an expensive method that often requires the use of the polluting regulating power.
In Europe, the decision-makers are used to rough criticism at times. It is a right and reason, because power has an awkward tendency to corrupt its bearer. But it is not reasonable, if a certain kind of power is not recognised as power, and therefore, no watchdog for it can be found, either. The corruption by power becomes ever more evident.
The phenomenon is at its strangest when in society a party is born, whose truths do not have to be checked by means of source criticism, and whose criticism can be interpreted as almost a symptom of a burnout, as was the case with the minister. Or as happened in my case: fact-based criticism was followed by threats of organisations to show my name in a negative light.
Jussi Tammisola, Adjunct Professor of Plant Production Sciences recently raised the issue of the special position of environmental organisations in the EU, which he considers a scary lapse. The views of the scientific community, the thousands of researchers, academies or research institutions are not even asked in the legislative process – and sometimes when they are asked, they are not taken into account. The environmental organisations are now listened to as if they were scientific experts, even though we are speaking of ordinary citizens’ opinions.
The fundraising campaigns of the organisations would also require a critical eye. Recently, Greenpeace International publically accused Stora Enso for buying wood from illegal logging sites in Russian Carelia. The statement needed of course a thorough and impartial investigation, because the customers became worried. This cost money. Nothing illegal was found.
Becoming the object of false accusations is expensive for companies. But for the one on the “right side” the wrong denunciation does not seem to cost anything. On the contrary: donations will increase. It is astonishing that there is no actor in society that tells people not to pay their monthly support sums or not to bequeath their inheritance to organisations that give false and erroneous statements for the sake of publicity. Donate to those that only speak the well-documented truth when reacting to defects.
(Column published in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 1 March 2008)
Published: March 1, 2008
http://www.korhola.com/2008/03/huilauksen-tarpeessaetela-suomen-sanomat/
Last week, Minister Mauri Pekkarinen contemplated the energy discussion that is taking place in Finland. The debate started in Brussels when he called it misguidance to think that Finland’s energy needs could be satisfied by “saying no to additional nuclear power, the new opportunities of peat as a transport fuel, as well as additional hydropower”.
The news commentary criticised the minister for his colourful use of language. “Is the pressure becoming too rough? Does the minister need a break? Did he get a teacher’s fit?” were the suggestions of a reporter at a radio broadcast the morning after. Pekkarinen, in his turn, wondered why he is not allowed to criticise sometimes, while everyone has the right to criticise his output.
Good question. The problem appeared to be that Pekkarinen’s critique was directed towards an actor, the criticising of which the Finnish journalist circles have not been used to. Essentially, he was criticising the energy agenda of environmental organisations and the fact that the inconsistency that presented itself had not been questioned for pretty much anything. “Slice-thinking” drives us towards bankruptcy, but who will notice?
The energy rhetoric of environmental organisations and the Greens feature two basic mistakes. The first mistake is mixing up the plant’s capacity factor and the produced electric energy that is derived from it. Recognising the difference between kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt-hours (kWh) should be the first requirement for an honest energy discussion.
Would the citizens not deserve to know that the amount of electricity derived from wind power is about a fourth compared to nuclear power, even though the capacity could be the same at some point in the future?
Another mistake is the inconsistency of the arguments. For instance, when speaking of the energy-saving potential the organisations often overestimate the energy consumption, which leads to the fact that the saving potential appears higher than it is in reality. When speaking of how realistic the renewable energy target is, the same number suddenly does not work as a starting point. In this case, the rise in energy consumption is belittled to prove that the renewable energy target is easily achievable.
Greenpeace recently explained its anti-nuclear stance by the fact that nuclear power produces electricity only and 90% of Finland’s climate emissions are caused by sectors whose emissions cannot be influenced by changing energy production only. However, the organisation itself does not apply the same logic to its own favourite, i.e. wind power, which also only produces electricity – whilst using an expensive method that often requires the use of the polluting regulating power.
In Europe, the decision-makers are used to rough criticism at times. It is a right and reason, because power has an awkward tendency to corrupt its bearer. But it is not reasonable, if a certain kind of power is not recognised as power, and therefore, no watchdog for it can be found, either. The corruption by power becomes ever more evident.
The phenomenon is at its strangest when in society a party is born, whose truths do not have to be checked by means of source criticism, and whose criticism can be interpreted as almost a symptom of a burnout, as was the case with the minister. Or as happened in my case: fact-based criticism was followed by threats of organisations to show my name in a negative light.
Jussi Tammisola, Adjunct Professor of Plant Production Sciences recently raised the issue of the special position of environmental organisations in the EU, which he considers a scary lapse. The views of the scientific community, the thousands of researchers, academies or research institutions are not even asked in the legislative process – and sometimes when they are asked, they are not taken into account. The environmental organisations are now listened to as if they were scientific experts, even though we are speaking of ordinary citizens’ opinions.
The fundraising campaigns of the organisations would also require a critical eye. Recently, Greenpeace International publically accused Stora Enso for buying wood from illegal logging sites in Russian Carelia. The statement needed of course a thorough and impartial investigation, because the customers became worried. This cost money. Nothing illegal was found.
Becoming the object of false accusations is expensive for companies. But for the one on the “right side” the wrong denunciation does not seem to cost anything. On the contrary: donations will increase. It is astonishing that there is no actor in society that tells people not to pay their monthly support sums or not to bequeath their inheritance to organisations that give false and erroneous statements for the sake of publicity. Donate to those that only speak the well-documented truth when reacting to defects.
(Column published in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 1 March 2008)
Published: March 1, 2008
http://www.korhola.com/2008/03/huilauksen-tarpeessaetela-suomen-sanomat/