EU budget: irrelevant posturing
Tuesday 30 October 2012
 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 and 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
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 |
Posts
