PowerSwitch

There seem to be a lot of jigsaw pieces coming together at the minute, starting to form a recognisable picture.

- Repeated warnings from industry think tanks about forthcoming oil, gas and electricity supply shortages
- A global financial crisis
- New anti-terrorist legislation which can be used for social control
- New Planning legislation removing local influence over major infrastructure decisions
- Big energy companies pulling out of CCS pilot projects and offshore wind
- A new generation of nuclear power stations on the table
- Increasing activism around climate change including warnings of 'eco-terrorism'

Could it be that we are on the verge of an across-the-board relaxation and repeal of environmental and climate change legislation, in the interests of 'keeping the lights on'? After all, this Government has made it quite clear what the priority is?

So 'tree huggers' are now the enemies of onshore wind power, which is now being deployed primarily because it is an energy source, not because it is a low-carbon energy source. We are looking at wind farms on every available hilltop, subsidised by the taxpayer if necessary, along with the same arrangement for nuclear power plants AND a new wave of traditional 'dirty coal' plants.

The renewables simply become yet another source of energy, deployed alongside, not instead of, fossil fuel and nuclear power. Local objection to wind farms will be crushed, as will objections to new nukes AND new 'dirty coal'.

Press reports of climate change disasters will be suppressed, as will reports of power cuts, riots, famines, governments being toppled, and whatever else the Government thinks might panic the 'Sheeple'.

What do we think?

What do we think? We think governments have become spoiled and filled with hubris the last 150-200 years.

When managing a growing system where most people can increase their consumption from year to year, governments can "get away" with all kinds of strange decrees. It is quite another thing to manage a shrinking system where people have to cut back their consumption from year to year. Shrinking consumption makes people grumpy and gives rise to the "nothing to lose" mindset.

Well, I think we just muddle along from one cock-up to the next and there is no conspiracy.

Yes to all of the above except for the last sentence. I've never expected anything else. When push comes to shove keeping the electricity and an essential minimum of liquid fuels flowing is the number one priority, which will over-ride all other objectives except national security (maintaining public order and deterring invasion). As our society is currently organised, without electricity and transport everything rapidly falls apart.

Andy Hunt wrote: Press reports of climate change disasters will be suppressed, as will reports of power cuts, riots, famines, governments being toppled, and whatever else the Government thinks might panic the 'Sheeple'.

Nope. In the age of global travel, global trade, global satellite TV, international telephony and the Internet, covering up large events is not possible. Word always gets out. The UK is too 'connected' to allow for effective censorship. The best any govt. can do these days is to apply spin.

I'm also fond of the cock up theory of history (which includes the 'cocked up conspiracy' theory as a subset - covert plans which go wrong). The UK govt. has put off getting a coherent energy policy together for so long in order to avoid controversy (Tony Blair should have tackled the nuclear issue in his first term, decided one way or the other and planned accordingly), that events have come to a head and bitten it in the bum. Reality can no longer be ignored and now it's in panic mode.

Andy Hunt wrote: Press reports of climate change disasters will be suppressed, as will reports of power cuts, riots, famines, governments being toppled, and whatever else the Government thinks might panic the 'Sheeple'.

What do we think?

At some point that may happen but let's face it, if there are wind farms springing up on every hilltop and people are told there's nothing they can do about it they're going to realise something serious is up.

Personally my view is that if we need wind farms on every hilltop, so be it. This is not the time to be sentimental. Though whether wind farms can deliver the energy goods I'm not sure.

As for this stuff about eco-terrorism, who knows? It may be the start of a campaign to discredit the Green movement, or it may be a way of preparing the public for the epidemic of a virus that happens to give a 1 in 4 chance of survival

I'm with Biff a conspiracy isn't necessary.

I like conspiracy theories they are good fun but really I don't believe anyone is smart enough to predict the behavior of complex systems reliably enough to make it worth trying to manipulate it in the long term. The current financial crunchiness is a nice demonstration of this.

In fact the idea of a government conspiracy is directly at odds with most of the actions they take which are aimed at this Sunday's news paper, next weeks bi-election or the election in at most a few years. If we are going to have a conspiracy it should at least involve the Illuminati or ten foot high alien lizard men at least that way we can buy into the idea of someone with a long game in mind.

Once a week I toy with the theory that as a species we have some form of collective instinct for self destruction and tend to act in small ways to manifest this. It always passes.

On the other hand I might be a agent of TPTB trying to distract you from what's really happening or maybe that is Andy's job

Andy: The Shock Doctrine how are ya!

I've long said that wind energy is additional energy, not an instead option. A minor point though.

We have seen nothing yet. I think we're at the top of the ski run with only one broken ski, no sticks and a crowd pushing from behind.

emordnilap wrote:I think we're at the top of the ski run with only one broken ski, no sticks and a crowd pushing from behind.

Awesome . . .

I have to confess I tend to lean away from the major conspiracy theories too. That's not to say that they don't exist, just that it's likely to prove impossible to implement them.

And yes, I agree that any kind of UK censorship would be irrelevant in a true 'global society', where information is accessible remotely from all sorts of locations, and mirrored all over the internet. Assuming that the Great Firewall of China isn't just a prototype Google intend to market to governments in all the developed countries . . .

The trouble is, stuff like martial law tends to be a symptom of loss of power and control rather than the opposite - a knee-jerk reaction to things getting 'out of hand'. Then again, in view of what successive governments have done to disempower and cut the pay of the police force, it would probably take quite a reversal to achieve anything like a 'police state' in this country.

I don't know what would be worse TBH - that there is a secret plan, or that there is no plan at all.

I don't see a conspiracy theory!

Isn't what Andy describes a 'sensible' or at least 'probable' goverment response to the problems we're going to face in this country in 2012 ish?

I mean what would you do? You've been to 'petrolprices.com' or what ever it's called! How you going to keep that lot in order when they can't go crusin' on a saturday afternoon? And what about the Nuclear issue? How you going to build the required amount of Nuclear stations in time? You're going to need the public on your side (que eco-terrorist spin), and the ability to remove a few key trouble makers on protest sites quietly....

I mean, really, we do have to get an awful lot of work done in the next four years if we're going to keep the lights on at the olympics....

Realistically, there is no BAU without nuclear. Without really very quick nuclear, and we must maintain BAU, because, well, BECAUSE otherwise, we'd have to use the 'less' word, and then we'd see a financial crisis that would make the last year look like a sideshow bagatelle.... ALRIGHT...

If you see maintaining BAU as a conspiracy then fine, otherwise, Andy's outline should simply be called a five year plan!

SunnyJim wrote: If you see maintaining BAU as a conspiracy then fine, otherwise, Andy's outline should simply be called a five year plan!

Was that an intentional allusion to Stalinist dictatorship?



Let's accomplish the plan of great deeds!

Four year, five year.... who's counting?

SunnyJim wrote:I don't see a conspiracy theory!

Isn't what Andy describes a 'sensible' or at least 'probable' goverment response to the problems we're going to face in this country in 2012 ish?

Agreed. Things only seem like a conspiracy when in fact events are merely influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, by other events.

The amount of influence between events is linked to vested interests but that's as far as it goes.

My 'crowd pushing from behind' are varying events, some stronger than others. The weaker ones who might be hanging onto the skier are getting wearier by the minute.

Sunny Jim -

Duke Energy, one of the major nuclear firms in the US has just admitted
that earlier cost projections for its new quick cheap nuclear plants were wrong.
They're now expected to cost $12 Bn each.

It was then pointed out that with current credit issues, financing that sum will raise the net figure to $14 Bn.
[Roughly £9.0 Bn, each].

Meanwhile the new Finnish plant is now 3 years behind schedule, and counting.

Meanwhile the climate is going to pot, threatening global food production, while the collapse of market confidence
is causing freighters to be laid up, threatening the global distribution of both food and strategic materials.

I suggest that BAU is over - how far off that point do you think we are ?

Regards,

Billhook

Who me? BAU is not an answer in my humble opinion. But until we have nationalised all the banks, and goverment has complete control of money supply there really isn't an alternative option. The banks DEMAND growth, and as we have recently seen what they want they generally get. However, some nationalisation was occuring, and these banks, the nationalised banks could manage a 0% interest based economy, and furthermore, could shrink money supply as we move into a long term decline in work done on planet earth. However, it would take a brave country to be the first to do this, and it would make the country relatively poor materially, and vunerable to attack from greater forces. It would require unilateral financial agreement, which is what I hope is happening at the Bretton Woods II bash in Washington last weekend. Of course it won't be. They will be working out how to re-start growth. As soon as work done from fossil fuels starts to dwindle, so will the real economy, and all hope of growth.

So, I don't see BAU as an option unless we crack fusion tomorrow. Even then it's on borrowed time. We must live within the carrying capacity of the planet, and learn to rely on its natural ecosystems rather than man made technosystems. My previous post was very tounge in cheek.

I also don't see Nuclear as a long term option, but its amazing how many do. We simply won't have the power or society structure to decomission them properly. People seem to believe in all manor of techno fixes to avoid having to rely on the planets natural eco systems for survival.... Sad really. It's like we've disowned our parents... maybe this is mankind's rebellious teenage years. Soon we'll realise our parents may be been correct all along as we lie twitching in a rehab centre somewhere longing for the comforting embrace of our mother.

SunnyJim wrote:maybe this is mankind's rebellious teenage years.

That's a good analogy. This race has just got its first squeal-mobile. Will it end up wrapped round a tree?