137 comments on Using NATO to fight peak gas
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
137 comments on Using NATO to fight peak gas
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Hello Jerome,
An extremely well-written article--Kudos! I really have no disagreement with your text. In fact, a huge commitment by all NATO countries & Russia to cooperatively conserve and research alternatives would probably generate less stress for all concerned in the long run. That is what I hoped would have been accomplished at the last G8 Conference hosted by Putin in St. Petersberg. Recall my postings before the G8 Conf. urging TODers and others to email the G8 website and push for ASPO's Energy Depletion Protocols to be the framework for this G8 discussion. Result: an opportunity lost.
IMO, Sen. Lugar is irresponsible to hype any idea of a military response as an answer to energy problems. What the world needs is more EcoHouses, bicycles, wheelbarrows, PVs, Windmills, etc; things that will allow the graceful shrinkage of detritus hierarchies to promote the natural connectedness of all men to the essential spiderwebs of Biosolar Life--- NOT rifles, tanks, ICBMs, parasitical political and detritus power elites, etc, in a futile effort to maintain FF spiderwebs that are geologically ordained to eventually shrink, shrivel, and rust away from entropy. In short: Detritus Powerdown and a matching Biosolar Powerup program is the best chance we have to minimize the violence ahead.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Indeed.
But even in the narrow world of our "deciders", there would be less confrontational ways to deal with Russia: for instance, by finding ways to help them improve the efficiency of their gas plants (which hovers, as far as I can remember, in the 20s) - something which would free up a lot of gas considering how much they use for electricity. Even if there are no commercial ways to do this, plain subsidies to di it would be good all around.
It’s a great article, I totally agree with your “increasingly confrontational” and “demonize others” points. The details of the various situations from gas to Sakhalin just don’t justify the media’s response.
I think one of the smartest things Europe could do regarding energy security would be to gift Russia a few tens of GW of modern CCGT plant in exchange for like-for-like decommission of inefficient gas plant and some kind of long term contract for Russia to supply the liberated balance of gas. Everyone's a winner, Russia gets new plant and some 'spare' gas to export whilst Europe gets an increased volume of gas than would otherwise be the case. No idea how the economics stack up but I suspect the 'costs' of physical gas shortages in a few years time are greater than the cost of CCGT construction.
Your characterization of Russia appears to omit some things mentioned in the US and web media, as well as being inconsistent:
Very good all in all, but you show a little tendentiousness as if Russia can do no wrong.
FWIW, Britain has a pipeline built for exporting North Sea gas to its neighbors. Presumably it sold it at market rates. Now that the supply is suddenly falling off, why shouldn't Britain demand to import gas at market rates also? Fair's fair.
1. Actually, it's the other way round: it's the Ukrainians who pushed for reopening the contract despite it having several years to run. As I explain in one of the diaries linked near the top of my story, that's linked to in-fighting between Ukrainian factions vying to be in control of that "private" (and highly profitable) deal to deliver not-Gazprom gas to Ukraine;
2. Yuschenko never was "Moscow's boy", but he was seen as more pragmatic and less opposed to Russian business interests that Yanukovich (who was clearly the top guy of the Ukrainian industrialists of the East of the country, a group wary of their bigger Russian competitors). Why Putin suddenly decided to drop his neutrality toward Yuschenko to back Yanukovich is a mystery to me - and probably was a mistake.
Note that I am not particularly pro-Russia, just really annoyed at some of the arguments used to bash Russia today, which are highly hypocritical. I am comfortable saying this because I've been criticizing Putin for years, and I had no illusions about his peculiar form of "democracy" before, and i'm not suddenly raising the topic today because I'm unhappy about his hardball, but perfectly legitimate, negotiating stance on gas, like the people I criticize today.
Not only that, but why is it that the Russians have any obligation whatsoever to do anything other than what they wish with their own natural resources? They are a sovereign nation, after all. As such, all decisions over how to dispose over their natural resources ought to be considered completely unilateral from an international law standpoint - and, for those who wish to honor international law in a non-hypocritical standpoint, also from a moral standpoint. (This doesn't apply to treaties or contracts that the Russians may have negotiated qua sovereign country; these need to be honored in order that THEY maintain moral and legal consistency with international law.)
As regards the interconnector (the UK- Belgium gas pipe), see this story form last year:
European energy liberalisation forbids gas deliveries to the UK!
as well as these others about the European context:
EU Energy reform = give Britain access to the continent's cheap spare capacity
Article deconstruction (vol. 6): Brown and protectionism
A European government caught being protectionist
UK protectionism threatens European gas supplies
Blair misses the protectionism meme
The new gas war
Who's dangerous? Russia or Europe's incoherent "reformers"?
Lugar was one of the few senators that faced no opposition in last year's election. He had no Democratic opponent on the final ballot. I doubt that he had to reveal much of his plans during the campaign. For whatever stupid stuff he pulls now, it will be hard to hold him accountable because the voters in Indiana did not demand a decent opponent.
On a more personal level, I can't stand watching Lugar talk. He has this strange facial affliction that makes him look like he is smiling no matter what he talks about. The corners of his mouth curls up every so slightly while his lower lip juts out to give him a perpetual grin. He might as well go all out and put on the Bozo the Clown makeup. I shouldn't make fun of him on a cosmetic level, but exterior appearances and presentation rule in non-verbal communication.