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

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 ]

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