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

False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Well, it is certainly false scaremongering but necessary IMO. Given another 10 years the way we are going the Russians will have achieved what the Soviets never could - having western europe over a barrel.
(groan)
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. The more scaremongering the better - maybe it will help prompt some serious investment in alternative energy supplies.

by Mike A on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:04:10 AM EST

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Well then, title it "Transneft warns Asian pipe will divert oil from Europe"

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

Jerome, it's about time we started hashing out ideas for Energizing Europe — towards European Energy Independence, because being hostage to gas and oil suppliers seems like a losing proposition.

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 05:18:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Yes please do. I remember reading somewhere about a week or two ago that the UK government was taking public submissions with regards to energy policy... I'll see if I can find a link.

by Mike A on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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 ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

CRAP. Missed the boat in the UK. I'm annoyed at myself for not posting about this review here when I first read about it in the paper, and others for not thinking about it either. A submission from eurotrib would have been nice.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/

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.

by Mike A on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

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

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As it were (none / 0)

I see the gas relationship with Gazprom as a stable and mutually beneficial co-dependency.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:30:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As it were (none / 0)

"stable ande mutually beneficial" for now. but how long will it be before we hit "peak (Russian) gas" as well as peak oil? at that point, wouldn't it be preferable for Europe to have made significant strides to achieving "energy independence", as Migeru puts it?

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

by marco on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 08:03:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

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".

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:04:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

No, but when Gazprom threatened EU gas supply stability as a result of the Centrica bush with the UK, I thought to myself that we should think of the existing long-term gas contracts as buying the EU time to wean itself off gas.

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.

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 06:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

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?

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 08:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

So the EU found itself in the crossfire between Russia and the UK, which is exactly what my comment was about. And I'm not saying Russia using its resources for political leverage is wrong, I'm just saying that I'm not sure the EU wants to be on the receiving end of that leverage.

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 09:01:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

(a) Don't be personally offended mate, I've had many colleagues who have worked in oilfields in Russia found the officaldom to be very xenophobic. They don't want foreigners working their, period, because they don't like foreigners. I'm mainly refering to the government not necessarily the people.
(b) I don't hold the free market dear
(c) I think oil & gas are still "too cheap" to be valued properly by the market and indivuals, so I have no problem with them being more expensive
(d) My problem is with security of supply, not the cost of that supply. Would you be happy if, say, Russia was dependent on China for its energy supplies?

by Mike A on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:11:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

I'm not personally offended :-)

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...

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:21:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

Well said slaboymni,

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.

by GreatGame2 (fishy_logic_at_yahoo.co.uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

The expat bonus is (supposedly) what you need to pay people to compensate them for the inconvenience of expatriating. Which means the number of expats should be really, really small and the need for expats restricted to managing roles. Not that it's like that in reality.

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 11:12:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Good points, but people described (derogatorily, unfortunately) as economic migrants do not receive a similar bonus.

by GreatGame2 (fishy_logic_at_yahoo.co.uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Economic migrants have the least bargaining power because they are the most desperate for a job, while expats are sent abroad to fulfill the needs of the employer so they command a bonus. It's not the fact that you're abroad, but why and how you're abroad.

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 11:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Thanks, GG2 -

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.

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:35:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

The only thing that it makes economic sense to expatriate from the US to Russia (or any other place with an educated workforce) is managers [including engineers as project managers or for training local engineers to work with specific American technology]. Anything else I'd attribute to cultural factors.

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 11:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

I would agree about expatriating managers back in the early 90's when Russia had no managers with, for example, significant retail experience.

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.

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:50:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

What expatriates have which has real value is trust by the management in the head office, and knowledge, to some extent, of the politics of that office.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

If you want to establish a new branch office or production facility it makes sense to send at least one of your own people to manage it who is familiar with your procedures. Then you can hire local managers if you need more than one manager. Or you can repatriate your expat after a few years.

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 11:57:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

It would seem to make more sense to recruit a local in the target country, bring them to the home country for extensive training, then send them back to the target country. If necessary, a manager from the home country could visit on a regular basis to provide oversight/mentoring.

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.

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 12:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Top Diaries

Zero Net Energy - May 6, 2026

Project Free-Dumb

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - May 2026

Growing Food in Hard Times

US Rugby

There Are No Grown-Ups In Charge

Recent Diaries

Great Global Power Game

EU Microsoft Servers Complicit in Palestinian Genocide

Bibi World, Genocide and Paid Hasbara Influencers

Local Elections 2026 - Starmer Sinks Labour Party

Zero Net Energy - May 6, 2026

Project Free-Dumb

European Nations Scold Trump's War On Iran

Zionist Terror Genocide of Palestinians

Mrs. Kallas Calling ...

A Shock Netanyahu's Cabal Didn't See Coming

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - May 2026

Triumph of the Divine Will

Children of Actor Ronald Reagan Running EU Today

Ploy for Surprise Attack On Iran

Growing Food in Hard Times

Remember Rachel Corrie

US Rugby

An Expert on What Happened in Hungary

Trump Orders Freedom of Navigation in Hormuz Strait

There Are No Grown-Ups In Charge

Occasional Series