Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Irresponsible - and false - scaremongering on the FT's front page | 56 comments (56 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)
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.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)
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

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)
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.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:46:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nucleaire - non merci (none / 1)
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

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:55:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Nucleaire - non merci (none / 1)
Forget about skyscrapers and focus on the abysmal home building and insulation standards. The flat I rent has double-glazed window panes but gale-force winds seep in through cracks around the window frames.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 07:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Conservation (none / 0)
You are, of course, completely right. It was, however, pointed out to me last Saturday that conservation simply won't cut it, as the demand is still on the rise. The projections are that we can't cut away enough to feed the demand - even with increased efficiency.

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

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 07:15:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Conservation (none / 1)
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.


Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
by marco on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 08:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good catch in a terrific diary (none / 0)
Exactly what I meant. BTW, I observe that cross-contamination of themes happen at ET at a faster pace...

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.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 09:26:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)
Especially when the money's already being spent on Cherie's hair.
Har har har!
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 !!!!
Repeat after me (to the Bee Gee's famous tune...)

head in the sand
head in the sand

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:49:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Irresponsible - and false - scaremongering on the FT's front page | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: