<ASPO Houston - a comment The Oil Drum DrumBeat: October 24, 2007>
<Oil Prices around the World: Do Exchange Rates Matter? The Oil Drum: Europe UK Energy Security>

105 comments on Energy: the fundamental unseriousness of Gordon Brown

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

gernos on October 23, 2007 - 4:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Can Gordon Brown be as ignorant of the world oil supply situation as he appears to be, or has it been agreed at the highest level of OECD governments to play dumb, in the hope (or expectation?) that the markets will send a sufficently strong (but not catastrophic) signal that a wave of just-in-time innovation and investment acheives a relatively smooth transition to alternative energy ?

I suspect that the powers-that-be may think they are being rather clever in NOT taking any mitigation steps.
"Look, no hands !" they seem to saying.
Such people no doubt view the typical TOD-er is a naiv babe in arms who has no grasp of the wonders of modern economics.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
RalphW on October 24, 2007 - 3:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Gordon Brown has close family connections to the nuclear industry. His younger brother Andrew Brown works for EDF Energy, the UK subsidiary of EDF, which operates nuclear power stations in France, and which is one of the leading companies pushing for a nuclear rebuild programme in the UK. Andrew Brown was appointed as EDF Energy's Head of Press on 13 September 2004. Previously, he worked for the lobbying company Weber Shandwick

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Gordon_Brown

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
garyp on October 24, 2007 - 4:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Gordon Brown has the soul of an accountant.

They, and their self-important kin, the economists, really do believe that because they put a number in a spreadsheet things magically appear. They've never had to deal with reality, instead they deal with man-made numbers - usually trying to play tricks to make the numbers dance to their liking. The real world is immune to their charms, and like the spurned suitor they react badly by trying to block it out.

All the while he is in charge we will have substantial attempts to maintain the status quo on all fronts. Nothing new will happen that doesn't lead to a new tax.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
RalphW on October 24, 2007 - 4:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I once had two job interviews in one day. The first, the shortest interview I've ever had, was for a maths programmer in nuclear fusion research. I couldn't answer the first question. Great place to visit, very friendly. Lunch was a sandwich at your computer desk sitting in a very tatty chair. We were surrounded by millions if not billions of $ worth of experimental kit.
The second interview was with an insurance company. Full hospitality suite with free booze, everyone in suits, lots of group sessions to see who would fit with the corporate personality profile. Later we were shown the office we would be working in. After two years we would be given a plusher chair and sit next to somebody vaguely important...

I tried to explain in my interiew that the difference between science and economics, was that one tried to fit the rules to reality, and the other tried to fit reality to the rules. I didn't get that job either.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SamuM on October 25, 2007 - 9:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

A true scientist must love truth.

Economist is better off loving power (and proxies of it, like money).

This is another fundamental difference.

To go into economics is to love power and to yield power, and truth can always be bent.

To go into pure science (again), is to have very little or specific domain limited power, but to truly understand how things work.

No wonder the two don't mix so well :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Carbon waste Life form on October 24, 2007 - 5:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

On Financial Times Website now:

I think it will disappear behind a paywall soon

Efforts to build a new generation of nuclear power plants are under threat from staff shortages, Whitehall disputes over investment in renewables and how to deal with nuclear waste, according to leaked documents from the government department overseeing the programme.

The problems could mean “any nuclear programme would have to be put on hold from April 2008” – the government’s planned start date – according to documents seen by the Financial Times. The documents form a “script” that John Hutton, business secretary, will present to Gordon Brown.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26dd1cc0-81a1-11dc-9b6f-0000779fd2ac.html?ncli...

Carbon -Coventry UK

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
thomas deplume on October 24, 2007 - 1:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The US isn't the only nation that has failed to educate its youth in the skills that will be in great demand in the future. Nice to know that the EU also suffers from globalization. It still amazes me how the things we could do in the 1960s and 70s is beyond our reach today.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

105 comments on Energy: the fundamental unseriousness of Gordon Brown

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version