Wednesday 31 October 2012



Energy: that's enough wind! 

 Wednesday 31 October 2012
Mail 495-qwp.jpg

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but it looks good – especially as Booker has a piece on it.

COMMENT THREAD



Richard North 31/10/2012

 EU politics: going through the motions? 

 Wednesday 31 October 2012
Reuters 407-esd.jpg

What is especially interesting about this story - telling us that the arch europhile Wolfgang Schäuble is urging Britain "to remain strongly engaged in the European Union" – is that I can find no trace of it in the German press. It seems that the Deutschemedien is just as parochial in its own way as the British – either that, or it just doesn't care.

However, on the well-tested premise that nothing in EU politics is ever accidental – at least, not things like this – one wonders what precise game the German finance minister was playing at when he visited Saint Anthony's College in Oxford on Monday.

Obviously speaking to reach a wider British audience (but a relatively small one as only a couple of news organs have lifted the story from Reuters), he asserts that "the British voice is sorely needed in this (European) competition of ideas".

He adds: "I firmly believe Europe would be the poorer without this input to our debates. Britain should retain and regain a place at the centre of Europe because this will be good for the European Union". Then he says, "Europe is also good for Britain ... I fear this is not always recognised".

We're getting much the same from Merkel, who is apparently planning to visit Britain, an "important partner", for talks with David Cameron next week. She has echoed Schäuble's comments, speaking to members of the CDU in the northern German town of Schwerin.

"Britain is an important partner in the European Union ... Britain has to some extent other ideas (about Europe), it does not want such close integration. But from the German perspective, from the point of view of our interests it is an important member of the EU", she says. "They (the British) are for free trade, for greater competitiveness, so they are a very good partner".

All this comes in the wake of Hague's visit to Berlin last week – something which was also ignored by the Deutschemedien, adding futher to the mystery. If these exchanges had any importance, and were part of a genuine diplomatic initiative, they should surely be getting more coverage, and certainly some German exposure.

My guess is that both parties (German and British) are going through the motions, so that when the inevitable fracture comes over the new EU treaty, they can both claim they have tried to head trouble off at the pass. The fact that neither side have tried very hard doesn't really matter.

Here, though, the loss-making Guardian may have picked up some useful vibes, as it notes Cameron still trying to milk the EU budget negotiations for domestic political advantage. Cameron, the paper says, "is in danger of making a serious blunder", in getting the balance wrong between "domestic and European priorities".

This is in anticipation of today's Westminster debate on the EU budget, where Tory europlasticism will be rampant and the "colleagues" might be best advised to avert their gaze – especially if Labour and Tory backbenchers combine to beat the government.

Maybe, just maybe, the Schäuble/Merkel initiative is aimed at giving the europhile Mr Cameron ammunition to help him support a case for continued engagement with the EU. After all, the role of the "free-market" UK bolstering the German tendency in that direction, against the dirigiste French, is very much part of the pro-EU rhetoric.

On the other hand, there is a strong vein of Germanophobia in Tory "euroscepticism", which means that a German love-fest could well backfire. The need to be "nasty to the Hun" could be a powerful driver in today's debate.

Nevertheless, for Cameron to have Merkel playing court, on the back of the finance minister of the richest nation in the EU saying kind things, is just the sort of thing that could appeal to the inner europhile, and he can use the attention to make the claim that "Europe needs us".

That could be the excuse he needs to ignore the outcome of the debate: "Cameron the great international statesman" acting for the common good, has just the right sort of ring, and could give him the confidence to hold his ground. And one never knows what sort of reward will be awaiting him when he loses the next election.

COMMENT THREAD



Richard North 31/10/2012

 Media: a storm called Sandy 

 Tuesday 30 October 2012
sand 032-krd.jpg

Witterings from Witney quotes from an Enoch Powell speech given at Bournemouth on 30 August 1980, at a public meeting in the Wessex Hotel:
The Conservative Government puts on from time to time the verbal trimmings of a patriotic vocabulary; but it spares no opportunity to commit itself, if possible more deeply than ever, to that view of the European Community …
Coincidentally, that is so relevant to my previous piece on the EU budget, where "the verbal trimmings of a patriotic vocabulary" describes perfectly Cameron's rhetoric on the EU. But, like so much in politics, it is not real. Simply, it is done for effect.

One wonders, therefore, how much of the torrent of publicity over Hurricane Sandy – dubbed a "Superstorm" by the media - is more for effect than real. As Mrs EU Referendum remarked, it's a bit like Hebden Bridge only on a larger scale. Mind you, then – back in July – we at least had the fun of watching BBC hackettes trying to pronounce "Mytholmroyd".

The fact that the "major disaster" as declared by president Obama comes a week before the presidential election may, of course, have something to do with the hype. With the legacy media largely supportive of Obama, this gives him the opportunity to show his form as the "Great Leader" that everyone should naturally want to return to Oval Office.

As for the "at least 16 dead" – in the United States and Canada - about which the Failygraph is hyperventilating, that is considerably less than the ninety or so people killed each day on the roads in the US alone. Given that the hurricane is keeping people indoors and off the roads, the net death toll for the duration may be less than average. Sandy could well be a life-saver.

Part of the gush of publicity, however, arises from the emotional incontinence of the legacy media, its inability to maintain an adult perspective on anything. Its coverage verges on the infantile, in terms of its lack of proportion. In truth, this is not a particularly severe storm – just a rather big one, in an unusual place.

As always, there is a penalty to be paid in driving other news out – although the bonus is silencingHuffington Post. But, since the legacy media, in all its arrogance, believes news to be only that which it deems necessary to tell us, that is no great loss. As always, we have to look beyond the headlines to find out what is really going on.

All that has really changed, wuth this storm, therefore, is that the headlines are bigger and more hysterical than usual – although as time progresses, the distinction between the various bouts of hysteria served up to us become blurred. They all merge into one.

In a few weeks, we will no doubt be remembering a hurricane called "Jimmy" which flooded out the BBC.

COMMENT THREAD 



Richard North 30/10/2012

 EU budget: irrelevant posturing 

 Tuesday 30 October 2012
Tel 561-sop.jpg

The EU budget theatre is in full spate today with Conservative backbenchers ramping up the entertainment quotient. This will give Mr Cameron the foil against which he can perform the heroic, Thatcheresque "handbagging", thence to rescue what is left of the rebate and reduce the multi-annual budget by tuppence-ha'penny or so.

Outside the Westminster politico-media bubble, very few people are actually interested and, of those that are, even fewer are at all impressed by the posturing and manoeuvring. Most people can recognise an empty charade when they see it.

That, of course, does not stop the egregious Hannan "bigging up" what will be a minor and inconsequential spat. But it suits this Europlastic apologist to parade that mythical beast, Tory euroscepticism, in the hope that there are some voters out there who are still impressed by such rhetoric.

On the menu is a threatened backbench "rebellion", where a limited number of the usual suspects will be given a license to make stirring "eurosceptic" speeches, demanding that no extra money, apart for an adjustment for inflation, is given to the EU, over and above the extortionate level to which we are already committed.

Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to pay around £13.6 billion a year, but absolutely unacceptable to pay that plus five percent more. That is Tory euroscepticism for you. However, even this game-playing is not working out, as Labour had jumped on the risk-free bandwagon, and is weighing in behind the Tory backbenchers, supporting a cut in the budget proposal.

The tragedy of this is that, nearly 30 years ago, all this might have been impressive. But now, the settled view of many who think about the EU is that they want an in-out referendum. Anything short of that is an irrelevance, especially when the outcome could result in reducing the EU budget payments to a round figure – zero.

And, as the BBC points out, even if Cameron gets his wicked way and blocks a multi-annual budget agreement altogether, the "colleagues" can vote themselves an inflation-proof annual budget, using QMV – which Mr Cameron cannot block.

They can also vote themselves a supplementary budget, which they are going to have to do anyway, leaving little Hannan with his crocodile tears somewhat stranded.

The fact is that, when push comes to shove, the EU can get the money to which it feels entitled, and it can always fine Microsoft or Google a few billion euros if it really gets stuck. All that then leaves is Mr Cameron to tell us us how important it is for us to be members of the EU. You just know that makes sense.

COMMENT THREAD 



Richard North 30/10/2012

 Energy: corporate slime at work 

 Monday 29 October 2012
Tel 034-boe.jpg

Andrew Brown, Shell's "upstream international director", says the UK and Europe are "missing a trick" in their energy policies. "There are a lot of subsidies going towards renewables", he says. "Gas and coal are having to compete to be taken into power generation".

But, because cheap shale gas is reducing coal demand in the US, there is "a lot of cheap coal in the marketplace", so European generators are burning more coal. Demand for gas, on the other hand, is declining.

This, actually, is something which Booker picked up recently, noting that, at the end of September, over fifty percent of our electricity was coming from coal, while only 1.3 per cent came from wind power.

However, as far as the UK is concerned, this is only a short-term effect. By next March, five of our largest coal-fired plants, capable of supplying a fifth of our average power needs, are to be shut down, much earlier than expected, under the Large Combustion Plants Directive.

Such nuances, however, escape the likes of Andrew Brown, whose own corporate interests guide his pronouncements. "You have this ridiculous situation", he says, "where cash-strapped Europe is putting a lot of money into renewables to reduce CO2, meanwhile allowing ... the power generators to take much more coal and back out gas".

"All the benefits you’re getting from the renewable energy are being counteracted by far too much coal", he adds.

You do love these corporates and their honeyed phrasing, diligently copied out by the girlie journos in the Failygraph. We don't get any "benefits" from renewables. The push for this utterly wasteful form of electricity production does nothing other than increase our prices and reduce the overall reliability of the system.

But this does not enter the mentality of the corporate being. Policy is currently directed a maximising the investment opportunity from the subsidy regime, and Mr Brown obviously isn't getting enough of it.

Thus, he tells us, the EU's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), "designed to reduce emissions by placing a price on carbon", in fact "doesn't work". The CO2 "is priced at such a low level it's meaningless". We – note the corporate "we" - he says "want a higher CO2 price. Power generators would then make the right economic decision for Europe, for gas. Renewables and gas work very well together".

So, the upshot of all this is that Mr Brown wants the EU to put up the price of our electricity, to support current investment decisions, so that he and his corporate friends can make even more money than they already do.

This is not a policy driven by actual need, otherwise we would be exploring ways to increase efficient coal use. Using supercritical technology and other enhancements, the best units give a clear 50 percent gain in efficiency over the global average.

Therein lies a story – using cheap coal efficiently would actually have more effect on global emissions (if you believe reduction is necessary) than the entire fleet of wind farms. But the likes of Mr Brown are not actually interested in solutions. Corporate slime are driven by greed, dressed up as public interest, bolstered by expensive PR.

The only thing you can guarantee, therefore, is that every time they open their mouths, it is going to cost us more money.

COMMENT THREAD 



Richard North 29/10/2012