Except that this makes little sense to scaremonger as oil is globally traded (whereas gas is not).
This is just propaganda. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The FT's story is probable part of the media blitz to convince Britons of the need to go nuclear after squandering their North-sea fossil fuel wealth in record time.
EXACTLY !!!
Tony has been convinced (ie "loans" discreetly banked - allegedly) by his rich mates to order nuclear power stations. Big fat contracts all round. so they have to do a softening up exercise to convince us that black is white.
The fact that they can't be done in time, everybody with any knowledge of the subject says it's a stupid idea and the rest of us think Chernobyl, Sellafield and Harrisburg and go "Atomkraft - nein danke" is meaningless. Especially when the money's already being spent on Cherie's hair.
Of course it helps that there has been no serious investigation of alternative energy in this country for 30 years.
Sorry if this all sounds snarky and ranting, but I am so outraged by a PM who has already said he's not going to do anything in the face of peak oil and global warming. It might impact british lifestyles and that would cost votes. And doing nothing will have no impact either - gah !!!! keep to the Fen Causeway
Like others around here, I am afraid nuclear has to be part of the mix. But given that the State has to accept the civil liability for nuclear power plants, they shouldn't be operated for profit by private interests. PFI/PPP is a lesser evil.
Possibly you are right. But given the complete lack of planning or thought that has gone into non-fossil fuel futures who could really predict if that's actually true ?
Specifically, I think we need a lot more investment in energy conservation. Housing and building standards have to be changed to reduce energy expenditure, especially domestically. We need more work done in bringing existing housing stock into an energy-deficient 21st century.
That would end Prescot's ticky tacky boxes on the Thames Gateway cos proper building standards would kill that silliness stone-dead.
No more glass office block monstrosities that are expensive to cool in summer and fearsome to heat in winter. It shouldn't matter if it wins awards for architects. Dammit, the nation can't afford such indulgence.
and that's before we even consider electricity generation. keep to the Fen Causeway
And that's the one word I wanted to flag in this post: efficiency. Framing is key to marketing, marketing is everything. Bush almost literally burst his tongue on the word "conservation". It doesn't fly in the dominant spend-spend mentality of today. I don't think you can get away with a plan tagged conservation on top of it.
The message should be: energy efficiency. It's the (kcurie's?) doctrine of two definitions: the one you use to sell the package, and the one you use to talk about with people who know about what you talk about and don't need prodding.
And I also need to do some correcting work on the "glass monstrosities" you seem to revile. There's a good use for them in energy efficiencies.
But enough for now... /off mini-rant
It's the (kcurie's?) doctrine of two definitions: the one you use to sell the package, and the one you use to talk about with people who know about what you talk about and don't need prodding.
Francois in Paris made a very similar point describing how the Republicans operate:
[Barak Obama] completely misses that the debate always happen at two levels, the general public and the base, and the terms are very different. The Republicans understand that very well and have played it for years with the outward message of "compassionate conservatism" or whatever to the general voters and the paranoid discourse to the base, "Christianity under attack" and all that crap.
Perhaps progressives are just too honest, or too idealistic in thinking that the progressive message should be understood by everyone, without diluting the language by catch phrases... Food for thought for someone who always thought that one type of language would be sufficient. Progressive Doublespeak seems needed.
Especially when the money's already being spent on Cherie's hair.
Sorry if this all sounds snarky and ranting, but I am so outraged by a PM who has already said he's not going to do anything in the face of peak oil and global warming. It might impact british lifestyles and that would cost votes. And doing nothing will have no impact either - gah !!!!
head in the sand head in the sand tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
The twelve week consultation period for the Energy Review closed on 14th April 2006. During that time we sought views on the measures that are needed by 2020 and beyond to tackle climate change, and ensure secure and affordable energy supplies in the UK. We consulted stakeholders through a written consultation exercise and a series of seminars held across the UK. We received over 2,000 written responses from individuals, businesses, academia, NGOs and other organisations. Although the consultation has finished the Energy Review is still underway. We are now analysing the consultation responses and will publish a summary of the views expressed within three months of the end of the consultation period. A statement on energy policy will be made in early summer.
Although the consultation has finished the Energy Review is still underway. We are now analysing the consultation responses and will publish a summary of the views expressed within three months of the end of the consultation period. A statement on energy policy will be made in early summer.
CRAP. Missed the boat in the UK.
Don't worry too much. The govt is only really interested in finding out what the industry wants to sell it anyway. They have no interst in our views whatsoever.
"Yes Minister" still defines govt attitudes 25 years on. http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/y/yesminister_7777145.shtml keep to the Fen Causeway
Both sides, but the EU (prodded by Blair) first need to stop their needless provocations that weaken the relationship. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
what is the difference between advocating weaning the United States off of oil with Energize America, and advocating weaning Europe off of gas (and oil)? are Europe's sources of gas and oil that much larger and more secure than the U.S.'s? Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
Given the amount of xenophobia, mafia, ex-KGP and just plain old corruption in the upper echelons of power over there, I wouldn't want to see my country reliant on Russia for its energy supplies.
Yes, you're only happy when Russia is supplying "cheap" energy to you, aren't you? When the price goes up (according to the free market, which you hold so dear), all of a sudden Russia is "xenophobic, just plain old corrupt".
Without making any judgements about Russia or the Russians, Russia is a distinct [neighbouring, related] geostrategic pole from the EU and is beginning to use gas and oil for political leverage. tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
No, but when Gazprom threatened EU gas supply stability as a result of the Centrica bush with the UK
This threat was mainly the result of Gazprom's frustration, as I believe Jerome has already mentioned, of the UK not playing by the rules.
That's my main point here at ET - there seems to be a different set of rules applied to Russia. And these rules appear to change magically, and abruptly, to suit Europe's interests at the time.
The EU uses trade for political leverage. How is using one's natural resources any different or worse, as you seem to imply?
However, have you thought that perhaps the Russians are not really xenophobic, but resent the fact that your expat friends are being paid 20000% more than they are for the same work?
Why exactly do you believe that Russia is not a reliable energy supplier? Jerome oftens states that Gazprom has been extremely reliable for the past 30 years.
All I'm asking is that you don't fall into the anti-Russian propaganda trap so easily...
I think a lot of us occasionally fall back on reflex (Cold War) anti-Russian (or anti-American) responses. It's a human failing. As long as there are people to point out the fallacy, all's well. Besides which it's a very easy political point for western leaders to score, and fear seems to be the political currency of choice in the UK at present. This does not make for a well informed, rational debate about the choices that country faces, and the media are doing precisely nothing to improve the level of debate - as regularly demonstrated here.
Your comments on expats (I am one) struck a chord: how is it possible, and efficient for these pay differentials to exist? Is local labour so completely disadvantaged in the wage bargaining process, and why does the same not apply to expats doing the same jobs?
I will eventually get round to writing a diary on the analogous situation in Azerbaijan, where labour unrest has started to become a prominent factor in the oil extraction business.
I've always wondered what justification a company could possibly have to expatriate someone from the home office in the U.S. to Russia, for example.
I can't think of a single area of expertise in America that is not present in Russia, and at a lower price.
Are you in Azerbaijan? I had two roommates in Russia. One was from there and the other was Russian, but of Armenian heritage. They got along great, though.
But now, there are many highly qualified and experienced local managers.
Besides, we all know managers don't do anything ;-)
I still cannot understand why a company that would prosecute you for stealing a $10 stapler would willingly pay someone 10x more than they would have to pay a local.
Being familiar with your company's procedures is absolutely useless abroad, as these procedures are based on the customs, laws, and best practices of the home country - none of which are the same in the target country.
Being an expat just seems to be a way to provide an employee with perks and compensation that would not be tolerated by shareholders in the home country. My belief of this is reinforced by reading sites like www.expat.ru, as well as other country-specific sites.
