Just to show that we are in fact equal opportunity fiskers something from the right which needs to be dealt with.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in today’s Telegraph manages to make a fool of himself:

Life has been short for the one and two euro cent coins launched with such fanfare less than three years ago.

and

The rocketing price of copper has pushed the production cost above the face value of the alloy coins. The alloys are a mix of 75 per cent copper and 25 percent nickel, a metal known to cause skin allergies. One study found that the two-toned coins release up to 320 times the maximum nickel allowed under Brussels’s own regulations.

Well, um Brose, you might want to have a look here. 1, 2 and 5 cent coins are in fact steel with a copper coating. The price of copper has about as much effect on the production costs as the price of oil does: what banks are really complaining about is the cost of moving them around.
The 10, 20 and 50 cent coins are made of Nordic Gold, a Cu/Al/Zn alloy with 89% copper. A quick back of the envelope scribble gives copper material costs for a 10 cent coin at about 1 cent US$. (You can check the metal prices here).
The two tone coins are the 1 and 2 euro, and yes, there really is concern about the nickel contents. Not actually the nickel itself, but the two tone part means that an electrolytic circuit is set up when touched by sweaty hands (not really sweaty you understand, just the small amount that we all have all the time) thus releasing the nickel. Materials costs for 1 euro coins are around 6 cents US$ per coin.
A pretty good day by the standards of Brussels of course, merely getting confused by an order of magnitude over money. The real question is whether I try and get the Telegraph to run a freelance piece as a correction or do I save it for The Sprout? Gawain?

Update: The Telegraph doesn’t want it.