Vince Cable's Adjournment Debate

johnhemming · Post by **johnhemming** » 13 Oct 2005, 15:39

Note text:

"However, there is another plausible view, which I do not discount, which is that there is an oil mountain, the summit of which we have reached, and that we face a long-term future of depletion. It is important for the Government to take a view on that controversy, because it affects the way in which one perceives the future of the North sea. It will be interesting to know, for example, what kind of analysis the Government's chief scientific adviser has made of the competing views."

PowerSwitchJames · Post by **PowerSwitchJames** » 13 Oct 2005, 15:46

This is very interesting. Will the government have to reply?

johnhemming · Post by **johnhemming** » 13 Oct 2005, 15:47

The debate is at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... h03_spnew0

The question Vince Cable asked about the Government Scientific Adviser's analysis of the different approaches on fossil fuel supply was not answered.

johnhemming · Post by **johnhemming** » 13 Oct 2005, 16:01

I have actually approached the CSA directly (but not yet got a response) on the question of Peak Oil. Apparrently it has been considered recently within the OST.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 13 Oct 2005, 16:13

johnhemming wrote:I have actually approached the CSA directly (but not yet got a response) on the question of Peak Oil. Apparrently it has been considered recently within the OST.

And what would the Child Support Agency know about peak oil?

You couldn't say what 'OST' is as well, could you?

As an aside, I had to take the day off yesterday and listened to PM's questions. It struck me then how hard it is to get a straight answer. Are there ways of getting proper, considered answers from the government? or can they always just reply in whatever way they want?

Peter.

johnhemming · Post by **johnhemming** » 13 Oct 2005, 16:18

Oral questions where no notice is given of what the question is are unlikely to get a good answer unless the issue is high in the political agenda.

Chief Scientific Adviser
Office of Science and Technology.

newmac · Post by **newmac** » 13 Oct 2005, 17:42

I got a response from Malcolm Wickes department after sending a letter to my MP urging her (Tessa Jowell) to do some research for herself on PO. The response from Malcolm's assistant didn't mention Peak Oil and was on the whole extremely disappointing - for example it pointed out something like how 1 in 5 new cars in the UK will be low carbon within 10 years - whoopee dooo.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

newmac wrote:I got a response from Malcolm Wickes department after sending a letter to my MP urging her (Tessa Jowell) to do some research for herself on PO. The response from Malcolm's assistant didn't mention Peak Oil and was on the whole extremely disappointing - for example it pointed out something like how 1 in 5 new cars in the UK will be low carbon within 10 years - whoopee dooo.

I know what you mean , I got a letter from Mike O'Brien when he was minister for energy (or whatever

)

He quoted the IEA line of "with the right investments there is enough oil to meet demand for 30 years and with the development of new technologies potential to last another 30 years"

Even the oil majors and USGS aren't this optimistic!!!

Give me whatever they're smoking!

jev · Post by **jev** » 13 Oct 2005, 20:45

I know the 'official' responses we all get from MP & officials are normally what I?d call super optimistic. I wouldn't worry about this too much as it's no more than one would expect really - they're just trying to pat us on the head the way they would slightly less informed members of the public for whom it would do the trick. It does make you mad though! Their job is to avoid any consumer panic or risk to the financial markets. Their public comments must be positive, and vague for this reason. Notice how few of them will take issue with the facts. It is patently obvious that the neo-cons over the water are well up on this subject and have been putting their strategy of world domination into place piece by piece to create a global empire feeding off the remaining oil for a few years now. Islamic Terrorism is the new Russia - post cold war -, it's the fear factor that is essential when you need to affect a degree of control over the vast majority of your population. When the problems this serious you need a serious degree of fear! The word terrorist is now used like the word communist used to be. When that key word is mentioned everyone?s supposed cower down and agree with everything, at risk of being labeled a subversive. Just agree that we need these new laws or that we must stop people saying things. This avoids people really thinking about the deeper issues themselves and whether the laws etc are actually likely to make a scrap of difference and what they COULD be used for etc in the future. Question anything and you?re instantly labeled a collaborator or weak or something. Question where the funding for most of the initial terrorism came from (US ally Saudi Arabia ? no doubt with some collusion) and they're less likely to want to carry on the conversation! Whether our Tony was ever let into America?s dirty little secret directly who knows. However it would be amazing if our intelligence agencies, energy analysts etc weren't briefing those in the upper echelons of power about the seriousness of this situation years ago. I'd be quite certain they know the score, but sometimes when you listen to Brown and Blair you think maybe they don't! I didn?t go to the conference but I read that Mr Meacher was a bit less forthright than usual? I heard somewhere that he might be considering running as a leadership candidate against Mr Brown - so even though he hasn?t got a cat in hells chance he still needs to ?reposition? himself a bit away from the loony fringes of society! Like they say ? you can tell when a politician is lying, he?s moving his lips!

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 13 Oct 2005, 21:10

jev wrote: However it would be amazing if our intelligence agencies, energy analysts etc weren't briefing those in the upper echelons of power about the seriousness of this situation years ago.

Why would they? If they had any inkling about the subject they would have known that they would all be retired or dead before SHTF...

Civil servants dont create problems for themselves. They try to put them off or shuffle them off onto somebody else. The function of bureaucracies is to perpetuate their own existance and expand their own size and influence for the benefit of the members of the bureaucracy. Not to cause trouble.

And collecting intelligence is only of marginal interest to intelligence agancies. Its their cover story, or at best a means to the real end.

I'd be quite certain they know the score

Why? I imagine all they know is what the oil companies and IEA tell them.

The name of the game is 'Dont rock the boat' and keep your fingers crossed that it all holds together till the O.B.E. .. and the directorship from Haliburton or BP... Not During My Term of Office.... Which leads us to the current situation of the Energy Minister praying for a mild winter and no natural gas cut offs....

I heard somewhere that he [Michael Meacher] might be considering running as a leadership candidate against Mr Brown

Brilliant idea. The point not being to actually win, but what a soapbox!

jev · Post by **jev** » 13 Oct 2005, 22:27

Skeptic - By years ago I wasn't saying like 20 years ago! I just mean that they probably became aware there was a problem when the Caspian reserve estimates were plumitting a few years back - this was after all supposed to be a new Saudi Arabia. Any clued up analyst would have reported this as a serious problem back then hence they would be aware of the situation probably before most of the world.
You might well be right that the government and civil service are relatively benign and only know what they are told by energy companies and agencies. At worst however Mr Simmon's , Mr Deffeyes (et al) books will have been read by those in the know and they will gain vast amounts of info from them, just as we have. However anyone who has had a look declassified American records over the years (some are available on the net) will soon find that what Politicians tell the public and what they say (and know) behind closed doors are often the polar opposite. If you can take a look at these types of historical records and are still convinced that they aren't usually very well informed and very adept at covering up etc then I?d be surprised. As for Michael Meacher - The way the media works, if he ever did decide to use a leadership run to raise issues yes this would be great - but if you honestly think he could get away with coming out with the type of views you will see from us Peakniks you've got another thing coming! As far as the mainstream media are concerned these types of views will be labeled as so far to the left of field that you'd need a telescope to see them! We're all terrible pessimists who secretly want the world to end and can't wait for the revolution! Meacher will get away with 'gentler' comments, as the strategy at this stage is to gently wake people up (Brown's recent comments clearly show this) to some possible energy problems ahead. However if he ever came out all guns blazing the media flak machine would either belt him with some dreadful story from his past (or whatever), discredit his views, report him highly selectively and generally finish his political career off. (Maybe he wouldn't care though as he's probably got a nice pension coming (lucky him - at least he's going to still get one! Most of us probably won't!) and a few directorships so he might give it a go!) This is the way the system works, it doesn't upset the shareprice of the master who owns it or the people who do the upsetting do the walking! There's stacks of evidence out there to show how selective and vicious (under certain circumstances) the mainstream media is.