Nuclear power? Don't dismiss it
The Observer | Comment | Nuclear power? Don't dismiss it
We cannot afford to dither any longer about the impending energy crisis. All governments must act now
Henry Porter
Sunday November 27, 2005
The Observer
The great game of the 21st century is being played out before our eyes, but few seem to notice.
Last week, Tony Blair hinted that he was prepared to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear reactors at an as yet unknown cost. In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election.
In Russia, President Putin has ruthlessly constructed a monopoly of oil and gas production which controls some 90 per cent of the country's reserves. On the way, he imprisoned Mikhail Khodorkovsky, stripping his oil giant, Yukos, of its assets and, in a separate deal, paid off Khodorkovsky's fellow oligarch, Roman Abramovich, with US $13 billion for his stake in the oil producer Sibneft.
The link is the supply of energy to the high-consuming, wasteful Western democracies. With about 50 years of oil reserves left and maybe 85 years of gas, the struggle for control of the world's energy resources will increasingly dictate events. It will impact on each of us and there will be almost no area of domestic or foreign policy unaffected by this desperate scramble. Lest people think that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken to establish democracy and eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, rather than to secure Iraq's oil reserves, then last Monday's revelations about Chalabi's 30-year binding contracts should give them pause. If you imagine that Tony Blair's musing on the nuclear option popped out of the blue, just remember Putin's visit to Britain in October and the conversation the two leaders had on the sidelines of the Russia-EU summit. Believe me, they were talking about gas, not chatting about democratic reform in Russia.
Having consolidated Russia's state monopoly, Putin came to Europe with his power greatly enhanced. More than 25 per cent of Europe's natural gas is supplied by Russia: By 2020, that figure will be nudging 40 per cent. The former KGB officer has got his hand resting on Europe's throat and with rising gas prices, it cannot be anything but sensible for Blair to look at other options.
These events and the cold assessment of what lies ahead are way above an average individual's understanding or awareness. We are so used to having all the energy we require that we are barely conscious of our needs and do not trouble ourselves with realities of the world as it is and, more seriously, as it will be.
I am often reminded of Sydney Pollack's 1975 classic thriller, Three Days of the Condor, which starred Robert Redford as Joe Turner and Cliff Robertson as a CIA officer named Higgins. Turner uncovers the CIA's covert plan to invade the Middle East and secure the oil supply for the US. At the end of the film, the two meet outside the offices of the New York Times, where Turner has just delivered a dossier exposing the CIA's operation. Higgins asks the idealistic Turner what the US government should do when people start running out of fuel.
Turner replies: 'Ask them.'
'Not now; then!' Higgins snaps. 'Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!"
Never a truer word was spoken in an espionage thriller. When the film was released in the wake of Watergate, Joe Turner seemed unquestionably heroic, but 30 years on, it's possible to admire Higgins's scathing realism for the reason that at least he's not having it both ways.
Today, there's so much in the liberal stand against the war in Iraq that is simply politics for the naive, who tremble at the idea of the war while at the same time demanding as much energy as they can use. We were lied to about Saddam's WMD because realists like Dick Cheney, Alastair Campbell and Ahmed Chalabi knew that the Western public would not accept that oil was even part of the mission in Iraq. They know that in our hearts, we just want them to get it for us.
Iraq is an utter mess and the invasion has undoubtedly played into al-Qaeda's hands, but I suspect the highest counsels both in Russia and the West regard the menace of al-Qaeda as a side issue in the scramble for energy. Indeed, the fear of terrorism can be rather useful to governments that want to impose greater controls on their societies or even persuade them to go to war.
What we need is true enlightenment in the liberal classes, not the naivety that shudders at the idea of nuclear power, or places undue faith in renewables, or runs an SUV that uses four times the fuel of an ordinary car, or maintain homes haemorrhaging energy.
The other day, I flew into Britain on one of those cold, clear evenings when everything is pin-sharp. It's a spectacular sight if you forget that the carpet of light is one of the reasons why we're heading for such trouble. Half the people producing all that light below were probably against the war in 2002. The same proportion have doubts about nuclear power and fret about global warming.
But all were spewing energy and carbon into the atmosphere, apparently unaware that these things are related. (I am far from guiltless in this respect. For one thing, I was on a transatlantic flight, typically calculated to release about one ton of carbon dioxide per passenger.)
Nuclear power appears to be a solution because it is held to occupy a position where the requirements for clean electricity and for independence from suppliers like Vladimir Putin overlap. I am tempted, but have yet to be convinced. No sensible debate has yet taken place and I am certain it would be disastrous if Tony Blair briskly commits us to this course without one. We need to know the costs and estimate the risks of nuclear power and see how they compare with other combinations of power generation, including renewables.
More important, this debate has to take place in a context of a settlement between government and the people about the immediate need for energy conservation, which is why David Cameron's idea of cross-party group dedicated to the environment is a good one. This is no longer a matter for party politics. The urgency is great. Those who read the scientific press or attend conferences on climate change know of the profound threat. Equally, they can see the disconnect between what society accepts intellectually and how people continue to behave. We have to understand that the crises of energy and global warming will intersect soon and that this will change the course of history in a most terrifying manner.
Governments can do much to help - creating a dedicated ministry that links energy to the environment would be a start. The redeployment of funds allowed for, say, the update of Trident (�12.5bn) and the ID card scheme (upwards of �3bn) into energy conservation and education is essential. But it requires a shift on our part, for these things have become a matter of conscience - of linking the use of the SUV with your stance on the war, of tying together the cheap flight to Majorca with a failure to insulate your home. We can no longer expect the government to get fossil fuels for us to burn because, quite apart from anything else, they ain't going to be there for much longer.
We cannot afford to dither any longer about the impending energy crisis. All governments must act now
Henry Porter
Sunday November 27, 2005
The Observer
The great game of the 21st century is being played out before our eyes, but few seem to notice.
Last week, Tony Blair hinted that he was prepared to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear reactors at an as yet unknown cost. In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election.
In Russia, President Putin has ruthlessly constructed a monopoly of oil and gas production which controls some 90 per cent of the country's reserves. On the way, he imprisoned Mikhail Khodorkovsky, stripping his oil giant, Yukos, of its assets and, in a separate deal, paid off Khodorkovsky's fellow oligarch, Roman Abramovich, with US $13 billion for his stake in the oil producer Sibneft.
The link is the supply of energy to the high-consuming, wasteful Western democracies. With about 50 years of oil reserves left and maybe 85 years of gas, the struggle for control of the world's energy resources will increasingly dictate events. It will impact on each of us and there will be almost no area of domestic or foreign policy unaffected by this desperate scramble. Lest people think that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken to establish democracy and eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, rather than to secure Iraq's oil reserves, then last Monday's revelations about Chalabi's 30-year binding contracts should give them pause. If you imagine that Tony Blair's musing on the nuclear option popped out of the blue, just remember Putin's visit to Britain in October and the conversation the two leaders had on the sidelines of the Russia-EU summit. Believe me, they were talking about gas, not chatting about democratic reform in Russia.
Having consolidated Russia's state monopoly, Putin came to Europe with his power greatly enhanced. More than 25 per cent of Europe's natural gas is supplied by Russia: By 2020, that figure will be nudging 40 per cent. The former KGB officer has got his hand resting on Europe's throat and with rising gas prices, it cannot be anything but sensible for Blair to look at other options.
These events and the cold assessment of what lies ahead are way above an average individual's understanding or awareness. We are so used to having all the energy we require that we are barely conscious of our needs and do not trouble ourselves with realities of the world as it is and, more seriously, as it will be.
I am often reminded of Sydney Pollack's 1975 classic thriller, Three Days of the Condor, which starred Robert Redford as Joe Turner and Cliff Robertson as a CIA officer named Higgins. Turner uncovers the CIA's covert plan to invade the Middle East and secure the oil supply for the US. At the end of the film, the two meet outside the offices of the New York Times, where Turner has just delivered a dossier exposing the CIA's operation. Higgins asks the idealistic Turner what the US government should do when people start running out of fuel.
Turner replies: 'Ask them.'
'Not now; then!' Higgins snaps. 'Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!"
Never a truer word was spoken in an espionage thriller. When the film was released in the wake of Watergate, Joe Turner seemed unquestionably heroic, but 30 years on, it's possible to admire Higgins's scathing realism for the reason that at least he's not having it both ways.
Today, there's so much in the liberal stand against the war in Iraq that is simply politics for the naive, who tremble at the idea of the war while at the same time demanding as much energy as they can use. We were lied to about Saddam's WMD because realists like Dick Cheney, Alastair Campbell and Ahmed Chalabi knew that the Western public would not accept that oil was even part of the mission in Iraq. They know that in our hearts, we just want them to get it for us.
Iraq is an utter mess and the invasion has undoubtedly played into al-Qaeda's hands, but I suspect the highest counsels both in Russia and the West regard the menace of al-Qaeda as a side issue in the scramble for energy. Indeed, the fear of terrorism can be rather useful to governments that want to impose greater controls on their societies or even persuade them to go to war.
What we need is true enlightenment in the liberal classes, not the naivety that shudders at the idea of nuclear power, or places undue faith in renewables, or runs an SUV that uses four times the fuel of an ordinary car, or maintain homes haemorrhaging energy.
The other day, I flew into Britain on one of those cold, clear evenings when everything is pin-sharp. It's a spectacular sight if you forget that the carpet of light is one of the reasons why we're heading for such trouble. Half the people producing all that light below were probably against the war in 2002. The same proportion have doubts about nuclear power and fret about global warming.
But all were spewing energy and carbon into the atmosphere, apparently unaware that these things are related. (I am far from guiltless in this respect. For one thing, I was on a transatlantic flight, typically calculated to release about one ton of carbon dioxide per passenger.)
Nuclear power appears to be a solution because it is held to occupy a position where the requirements for clean electricity and for independence from suppliers like Vladimir Putin overlap. I am tempted, but have yet to be convinced. No sensible debate has yet taken place and I am certain it would be disastrous if Tony Blair briskly commits us to this course without one. We need to know the costs and estimate the risks of nuclear power and see how they compare with other combinations of power generation, including renewables.
More important, this debate has to take place in a context of a settlement between government and the people about the immediate need for energy conservation, which is why David Cameron's idea of cross-party group dedicated to the environment is a good one. This is no longer a matter for party politics. The urgency is great. Those who read the scientific press or attend conferences on climate change know of the profound threat. Equally, they can see the disconnect between what society accepts intellectually and how people continue to behave. We have to understand that the crises of energy and global warming will intersect soon and that this will change the course of history in a most terrifying manner.
Governments can do much to help - creating a dedicated ministry that links energy to the environment would be a start. The redeployment of funds allowed for, say, the update of Trident (�12.5bn) and the ID card scheme (upwards of �3bn) into energy conservation and education is essential. But it requires a shift on our part, for these things have become a matter of conscience - of linking the use of the SUV with your stance on the war, of tying together the cheap flight to Majorca with a failure to insulate your home. We can no longer expect the government to get fossil fuels for us to burn because, quite apart from anything else, they ain't going to be there for much longer.
posted by Marcel at 5:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home