Global warming coverage cools in Europe : CJR

Fewer European journalists are covering UN climate summits in person
...
The decline of European media attendance is astonishing...
I interviewed seven experienced reporters working for mainstream outlets in Western European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), all of whom used to attend climate summits until Copenhagen and now cover them from afar.

In addition to media organizations downsizing and making budget cuts, all their editors argued that as expectations were lower and there were fewer Heads of State attending Cancun or Durban, it was not worth spending money to send a correspondent abroad for at least a week...
There was a general consensus among these reporters that environment journalists have some responsibility for climate change not being treated with the same urgency in European mainstream media after Copenhagen. They feel that some of their stories were too alarmist and more focused on potentially devastating consequences rather than possible local solutions; that in most cases they overreacted to ‘Climategate’; that too much space was given to climate sceptics; or that they did not appropriately balance the opinions given by scientists and politicians—leaving their audience unclear as to which had more weight or merit...
None of the climate journalists I have talked to believe that a difference in climate change will emerge from a global forum like a UN summit, but more likely from action at the local level. However, media presence in the places where decisions are taken seems necessary to help maintain pressure on governments and to engage citizens already suffering ‘climate fatigue’ after years of communication failure from journalists, politicians, scientists, and environmentalists around this immensely challenging issue that is the future of the planet.

The Reference Frame: EU carbon market will be saved by a new boom of coal

The new boom that is expected both in Western Europe as well as the post-socialist Europe is the only sensible way how the carbon market may be saved. Isn't it ironic? ;-) For the climate alarmists to preserve their institutionalized bare skin, they must do everything they can to force people to build new coal power plants. Such paradoxical events occur everywhere where planning trumpets the market. The plans – indefensible irrational arbitrary guesses – are almost never right or realistic which is why their champions often have to do many things, including things that manifestly make things worse, to preserve their face.

- Bishop Hill blog - Spiral of subsidy

You can see where this is heading: each generator will demand more and more support to keep them in the marketplace. A guaranteed price for nukes will have to be met by an increase in support for wind. We will end up with a disastrous spiral: subsidy after bung after price floor after graft after corruption. All paid for by you.

So here's a novel idea. How about we do away with the rules and regulations and see who is really the cheapest?