The era of gnashing teeth

6 02 2017

Since Trump’s election to the Oval Office, there has been an unbelievable amount of teeth gnashing going on all over the internet….. HOW could it possibly have come to this..?

To me, the answer is as clear as a bell. People all over the world can sense that everything ‘is turning to shit’, if you pardon my fluent French. The economies of the world are faltering (in real sense, not GDP money throughput), unemployment is high, manipulated to lower figures with creative accounting, the climate is falling apart causing food shortages in Europe, and the Middle East appears as a seething hot bed of war and terrorism.

The problem lies in the fact nobody knows why this is happening, because they have been conned for years by governments everywhere telling them everything is fine, we just have to ‘return to growth’.

Trump convinces enough Americans to vote for him so he can make America great again, because neither he nor his voters have the faintest idea America is actually on the cusp of collapse.

In France, Marine Le Pen wants to make France strong again……. and just like in America, this resonates with the electorate who now look like they may make her the country’s first woman President, and the first from the extreme right.

Here in Australia, we have a similar rise from the right, with Pauline Hanson and her one nation party making scary inroads into popularity rating. A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald states:

In the aftermath of Mr Trump’s US election victory, where he strongly advocated reviving that nation’s manufacturing industry, nearly 83 per cent of surveyed Australian said they strongly agreed (42 per cent) or agreed (40.5 per cent) with the notion we are too reliant on foreign imports. Only 6 per cent disagreed.

Support for an expansion of Australia’s manufacturing sector was robust regardless of age, gender, income or locality.

This unsurprising finding comes from the Political Persona Project, a comprehensive attempt to profile different types of Australians based on their lifestyles, social values and politics. Fairfax Media in collaboration with the Australian National University and Netherlands-based political research enterprise Kieskompas conducted the project which revealed there are seven types of Australians, representing seven dominant patterns of thinking in Australian society.

Manufacturing has been declining since the 1970’s, which coincides with the USA’s Peak Oil, in case no one noticed….. then, one in four Australian workers were employed in the sector. This downturn has gathered pace in recent years with over 200,000 manufacturing jobs lost between 2008 and 2015. But no mention of dropping net energy, or an energy cliff. The manufacturing sector now accounts for only about one in 13 Australian workers. The decline means Australia is relying more on foreign producers to supply manufactured goods……… not to mention we have to import over 90% of our liquid fuel requirements, with likely no more than 3 or 4 years before this turns to 100%.

Underpinning the nostalgia for manufacturing was a strong feeling of having been left out of the new economy, said Carol Johnson, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of Adelaide.

Might this have anything to do with the fact that since the Thatcher/Reagan era, the economy was converted from an energy based one to a money based version…..?

“Manufacturing still matters to the economy and Australians know it,” he said.

“The public’s gut instinct is absolutely right.”

How much more wrong could they actually be……..?

Advertisements




Moi aussi, je suis Charlie…..

28 01 2015

I’ve refrained from commenting on the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris, partly because I’ve been frankly very busy, and partly because I got burnt out arguing with people on FB about what they do not understand about French culture.  Yes, it can be construed that as I have been away more than 50 years – dotted with one brief return in 1980 – I am no longer French, and I agree I certainly feel a lot more Australian than French these days, but if there is one thing I miss about this great country, it is culture.  French culture of course.  I’m not in the least being critical of Australia, there’s no way I’m going to live anywhere else, but throwing prawns on the barbie and watching cricket or footy on the tube is not culture………!

There seems to be a misconception all over the internet that Charlie Hebdo is “anti-Islam”. In fact it is anti-religion, anti-censorship, and anti-authority generally. Like me, really…  Many of its past covers have depicted beloved religious, political, and cultural figures saying or doing obscene things, and would be considered far outside the rules of dignified discourse by basically any Western media. Unless of course, it’s French….

In France (and Belgium where I was actually born) it is par for the course in adult cartooning to “take the piss”.  These obscene cartoons are in no way meant to inspire anger or to convert people to the cartoonist’s preferred ideology; they are meant to tear down the walls of your ego.  Not to mention all the things that you believe make you a good person because you hold them so sacred. They are meant to drag you down to the cartoonist’s level and laugh alongside him or her. A bit like Meister Eckhart’s enigmatic saying, “He who blasphemes praises God.”

This intentional testing of the limits of freedom of speech is one of France’s great accomplishments, in my opinion. After all, ‘Freedom of Speech’ was invented there after the Revolution that destroyed the elites’ wish to not have any such freedom.  Compared to Russia, where it seems the overwhelming cultural consensus is that no one benefits from such obscenity and blasphemy, and blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed or the Orthodox Church is even illegal;  Pussy Riot broke this law and paid the price.  There was international outcry over this, but somehow the consensus about Charlie Hebdo is now that they went too far.  Not in France of course…..  In America, where blasphemy is considered distasteful, plenty of people do it anyway simply to be mean to others and apparently prove how cultured and intelligent they think they are. The tradition of French cartooning does not try to be particularly clever or prove a political point: it merely looks upon all of the world’s attempts to establish order and narrative with the scorn I believe it deserves.

Voltaire, Diderot, and the Encyclopédie are where it all started, but there is much more to the story.  During the reign of Louis XVI, peddlers of porn would gather in the royal court square where due to some archaic law they were free from all censorship, and sell slanderous erotica about Marie Antoinette.  Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…  Parisians at this time were naive (no internet, remember?), and believed the slander being published.  Marie Antoinette became so hated due to this, the monarchy of 1789 dissolved into violence.  The rest, as they say, is history, and freedom of speech was born.  The maturity needed for all of society to accept obscene fictions as part of the national character was hard-won. An attack on this culture is an attack on France itself.

France is the most feared nation for Islamic extremists precisely because of this cultural freedom; the French demand that sacred cows be allowed to burn, and high and mighty egos set aside, for the shared goals of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.  This is a clear repudiation of ignorant, barbaric, and ego-driven terrorism.  The centerpiece of this culture is Charlie Hebdo.  This is why I too join all of France to say “Je suis Charlie” today…….

I’ve lifted some images for your pleasure that show CH is much more than taking the piss from Muslims.  As you can see, the French love bum jokes.  The C word is used constantly in colloquial French, no one ever bats an eyelid….  Irreverance rules, and if Muslims really don’t like it, they can always go back or go some place else.  Like Russia.

 

 

 

UPDATE:
Through reading this very interesting article, I found these two cartoons…..

 

 





Wind Blowing Nowhere

24 01 2015

I’ve just found this amazing post on Euan Mears’ excellent Energy Matters blog that clearly demonstrates, with real data, that anyone who believes renewables can run Business as Usual are just plain dreaming.

In much of Europe energy policy is being formulated by policymakers who assume that combining wind generation over large areas will flatten out the spikes and fill in the troughs and thereby allow wind to be “harnessed to provide reliable electricity” as the European Wind Energy Association tells them it will:

The wind does not blow continuously, yet there is little overall impact if the wind stops blowing somewhere – it is always blowing somewhere else. Thus, wind can be harnessed to provide reliable electricity even though the wind is not available 100% of the time at one particular site.

Here we will review whether this assumption is valid. We will do so by progressively combining hourly wind generation data for 2013 for nine countries in Western Europe downloaded from the excellent data base compiled by Paul-Frederik Bach, paying special attention to periods when “the wind stops blowing somewhere”. The nine countries are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain and the UK, which together cover a land area of 2.3 million square kilometers and extend over distances of 2,000 kilometers east-west and 4,000 kilometers north-south:

Figure 1:  The nine countries

We begin with Spain, Europe’s largest producer of wind power in 2013. Here is Spain’s hourly wind generation for the year. Four periods of low wind output are numbered for reference:

Figure 2:  Hourly wind generation, Spain, 2013

Now we will add Germany, Europe’s second-largest wind power producer in 2013. We find that Spanish low wind output period 4 was more than offset by a coincident German wind spike. Spanish low wind periods 1, 2 and 3, however, were not.

Figure 3:  Hourly wind generation, Spain + Germany, 2013

Now we add UK, the third largest producer in 2013. Wind generation in UK during periods 1, 2 and 3 was also minimal:

Figure 4:  Hourly wind generation, Spain + Germany + UK, 2013

As it was in France, the fourth largest producer:

Figure 5:  Hourly wind generation, Spain + Germany + UK + France, 2013

And also in the other five countries, which I’ve combined for convenience:

Figure 6:  Hourly wind generation, nine countries combined, 2013

Figure 7 is a blowup of the period between February 2 and 15, which covers low wind period 2. According to these results the wind died to a whisper all over Western Europe in the early hours of February 8th:

Figure 7: Wind generation, nine countries combined, February 2013

These results are, however, potentially misleading because of the large differences in output between the different countries. The wind could have been blowing in Finland and the Czech Republic but we wouldn’t see it in Figure 7 because the output from these countries is still swamped by the larger producers. To level the playing field I normalized the data by setting maximum 2013 wind generation to 100% and the minimum to 0% in each country, so that Germany, for example, scores 100% with 26,000MW output and 50% with 13,000MW while Finland scores 100% with only 222MW and 50% with only 111MW. Expressing generation as a percentage of maximum output gives us a reasonably good proxy for wind speed.

Replotting Figure 7 using these percentages yields the results shown in Figure 8 (the maximum theoretical output for the nine countries combined is 900%, incidentally). We find that the wind was in fact still blowing in Ireland during the low-wind period on February 8th, but usually at less than 50% of maximum.

Figure 8:  Percent of maximum wind generation, February 2013

But even Ireland was not blessed with much in the way of wind at the time of minimum output, which occurred at 5 am. Figure 10 plots the percentage-of-maximum values for the individual countries at 5 am on the map of Europe. If we assume that less than 5% signifies “no wind” there was at this time no wind over an area up to 1,000 km wide extending from Gibraltar at least to the northern tip of Denmark and probably as far north as the White Sea:

Figure 9:  Map of percent of maximum wind generation, February 2013

During this period the wind was clearly not blowing “somewhere else”, and there are other periods like it.

Combining wind generation from the nine countries has also not smoothed out the spikes. The final product looks just as spiky as the data from Spain we began with; the spikes have just shifted position:

Figure 10: Spain wind generation vs. combined generation in all nine countries, 2013 (scales adjusted for visual similarity)

Obviously combining wind generation in Western Europe is not going to provide the “reliable electricity” its backers claim it will. Integrating European wind into a European grid will in fact pose just as many problems as integrating UK wind into the UK grid or Scottish wind into the Scottish grid, but on a larger scale. We will take a brief look at this issue before concluding.

Integrating the combined wind output from the nine countries into a European grid  would not have posed any insurmountable difficulties in 2013 because wind was still a minor player, supplying only 8.8% of demand:

Figure 11: Wind generation vs. demand, nine countries combined

But integration becomes progressively more problematic at higher levels of wind penetration. I simulated higher levels by factoring up 2013 wind generation with the results shown on Figure 12, which plots the percentage of demand supplied by wind in the nine countries in each hourly period. Twenty percent wind penetration looks as if it might be achievable; forty percent doesn’t.

Figure 12:  Percent of hourly demand supplied by wind at different levels of wind penetration using 2013 data

Finally, many thanks to Hubert Flocard, who recently performed a parallel study and graciously gave Energy Matters permission to re-invent the wheel, plus a hat tip to Hugh Sharman for bringing Hubert’s work to our attention.





We cannot shop our way out of environmental crisis, ‘green’ or not

20 08 2014

1Guest post by Pete Dolack.  Pete is an activist, writer, poet and photographer. He wishes he could keep all those balls in the air but keeps dropping some of them. He has worked with a variety of groups as an activist, and currently works with Trade Justice New York Metro as part of the effort to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He writes about the economic crisis, and ideas for a better world in his blog Systemic Disorder. He is also the author of the upcoming book, It’s Not Over: Lessons from the Socialist Experiment.

Originally published at Generation Alpha

 

 

There is no alternative to a dramatic change in the organization of the global economy. We cannot make ‘green’ what cannot be green. A powerful 33-page paper by Dr. Richard Smith, Green capitalism: the god that failed, demonstrates this as effectively as anything I have read. Richard, from the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London, argues that:

  • “Green capitalism” is “doomed from the start” because maximizing profit and ecological sustainability are broadly in conflict; the occasional time when they might be in harmony are temporary and rare exceptions. This is because corporations are answerable to private owners and shareholders, not to society. Profit maximization trumps all else under capitalism and thereby sets limits to ecological reform.
  • No capitalist government can impose “green taxes” effective enough to end the coal or other destructive industries because the result would be recession and mass unemployment.
  • Green-capitalism proponents vastly underestimate the speed with which environmental collapse is coming. No amount of tinkering can alter the course of environmental destruction under the present system. Humanity, therefore, must replace capitalism with a post-capitalist ecologically sustainable economy.
  • Resource extraction is inherently polluting but can’t be shut down without chaos. It is not possible to “dematerialize” much of the economy, as green-capitalism proponents believe possible. The only way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is to “enforce a drastic contraction of production in the industrialized countries.” This is not possible under capitalism because the affected industries would be committing suicide. It could only be carried out through a socialization of industry and a redeployment of labour to sectors that need to be developed for social good.
  • Consumerism and over-consumption are not “cultural” or the result of personal characteristics — they are a natural consequence of capitalism and built into the system. Problems like climate change and other aspects of the world environmental crisis can only be solved on a global level through democratic control of the economy, not by individual consumer choices or national governments.

 

Cap-and-trade equals profits by polluting

European attempts to implement “cap and trade” schemes to limit greenhouse-gas emissions were countered from the start by industry lobbyists asking for exceptions because, they argued, they would lose competitiveness. Some threatened to move elsewhere, taking jobs with them. Governments gave in. Polluters and traders took in windfall profits, with no real effect on emissions. Dr. Smith writes:

“German electricity companies were supposed to receive 3 per cent fewer permits than they needed to cover their total emissions between 2005 and 2007, which would have obliged them to cut emissions by that amount. Instead the companies got 3 percent more than they needed — a windfall worth about $374 billion at that time.”

A proposal to directly tax carbon in France, proposed by the administration of Nicolas Sarkozy, was ruled unconstitutional because most of France’s major polluters would have been let off the hook entirely while households would have assumed the burden. Dr. Smith put the farce of this failed proposal in perspective:

“The court said that more than 1,000 of France’s biggest polluters could have been exempted from the charges, and that 93 percent of industrial emissions would not have been taxed at all. But even if Sarkozy had successfully imposed his carbon tax, this tax would have raised the price of gasoline by just 25 US cents per gallon. Given that the French already pay nearly $9 per gallon for gasoline, it’s hard to see how an additional 25 cents would seriously discourage consumption let alone ‘save the human race.’ ”

Some advocates of cap-and-trade or carbon taxes in the United States try to get around industry pushback by advocating they become “revenue-neutral.” But if “carbon tax offsets are revenue neutral, then they are also ‘impact neutral,’ ” Dr. Smith writes. That brings us back to the reality that imposing drastic cuts would be the only way to effect the significant reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change in coming decades. That, in turn, can’t be done without massive dislocation.

Yet reductions are not only necessary, but will be required by physical limits — the world’s population is using the resources at the rate of 1.5 Earths and the United Nations predicts we’ll be using two Earths by 2030. Moreover, if all the world’s peoples used resources at the rate that the United States does, “we would need 5.3 planets to support all this.” Needless to say, we have only one Earth available.

 

More efficiency leads to more consumption

One of the pillars on which green capitalists rest their advocacy is increased efficiency of energy usage, achieved through technological innovation. But energy usage has been increasing, not decreasing, despite greater efficiencies gained out of a range of products. Gains in efficiency can, and frequently are, used to expand production; given that capitalist incentives reward expansion, that is what is done. Moreover, “green” industries are not necessarily green. The paper points out:

“Even when it’s theoretically possible to shift to greener production, given capitalism, as often as not, ‘green’ industries just replace old problems with new problems: So burning down tracts of the Amazon rainforest in order to plant sugarcane to produce organic sugar for Whole Foods or ethanol to feed cars instead of people, is not so green after all. Neither is burning down Indonesian and Malaysian rainforests to plant palm-oil plantations so Britons can tool around London in their obese Landrovers.”

Making motor vehicles more fuel-efficient, although a goal that should be pursued, nonetheless falls far short of a solution. Fuel usage from the increasing number of vehicles and longer distances travelled are greater than all the savings from fuel efficiency. And focusing on only when the vehicle is being driven leaves untouched most of the pollution caused by them. Dr. Smith writes:

“Most of the pollution any car will ever cause is generated in the production process before the car even arrives at the showroom — in the production of all the steel, aluminium, copper and other metals, glass, rubber, plastic, paint and other raw materials and inputs that go into every automobile, and in the manufacturing process itself. Cars produce 56 percent of all the pollution they will ever produce before they ever hit the road. … [S]o long as [automakers] are free to produce automobiles without limit more cars will just mean more pollution, even if the cars are hybrids or plug-in electric cars.”

Those electric vehicles are only as “clean” as the source of electricity used to power them. Many plug-in electric vehicles are coal-powered vehicles because coal is a common source of electricity. Looking at it holistically, such an electric vehicle would be more polluting than a gasoline-fuelled vehicle; and the majority of the pollution from the manufacturing (for the vehicle itself) would be there just the same. Then there is the pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions of the electric-car battery. Nickel is a primary input; the Russian city that is the site of the world’s largest source of nickel, Norilsk, is one of the world’s most polluted places.

“I would not be surprised if the most ecological cars on the planet today are not those Toyota Priuses or even the Chevy Volts with their estimated [seven- to 10-year] lifespan, but those ancient Fords, Chevrolets, and Oldsmobiles cruising round the streets of Havana. For even if their gas mileage is lower than auto-producer fleet averages today, they were still produced only once, whereas American ‘consumers’ have gone through an average of seven generations of cars since 1960 (when the U.S. embargo ended car imports to Cuba), with all the manufacturing and disposal pollution that entailed.”

 

Consumerism props up capitalist economies

Planned obsolescence is part of the problem, across the spectrum of manufactured products. Capitalist manufacturers don’t want products that last a long time; repeatedly selling new products is far more profitable. But it would be overly simplistic to lay full blame for this on greed, however much greed is rewarded by a capitalist economy. Household consumption — all the things that people buy for personal use from toothbrushes to automobiles — accounts for 60 to 70 percent of gross domestic product in almost all advanced capitalist countries. If people aren’t buying things, the economy struggles.

Proponents of green capitalism fail to grasp the structural causes of over-consumption. However much better for the environment, and the world’s future, drastic reductions in consumerism would be, moral exhortations can’t be effective. Trapped in an idealist mirage that capitalism can be “tamed” or “repurposed,” green capitalists, through seeking individual solutions to structural and systemic problems, not only miss the forest for the trees but leave the economic structure responsible untouched. People in the global North should consume less, but to place the blame on individual behaviour lets the manufacturers of useless products off the hook and is blind to the economic realities should the system be left in place intact.

Once again, we cannot shop our way out of economic and environmental problems. Even not shopping would bring its own set of problems, Dr. Smith writes:

“[H]ow can we ‘reject consumerism’ when we live in a capitalist economy where, in the case of the United States, more than two-thirds of market sales, and therefore most jobs, depend on direct sales to consumers while most of the rest of the economy, including the infrastructure and not least, the military, is dedicated to propping up this super consumerist ‘American way of life?’ Indeed, most jobs in industrialized countries critically depend not just on consumerism but on ever-increasing over-consumption. We ‘need’ this ever-increasing consumption and waste production because, without growth, capitalist economies collapse and unemployment soars. …

[I]t’s not the culture that drives the economy so much as, overwhelmingly, the economy that drives the culture: It’s the insatiable demands of shareholders that drive corporate producers to maximize sales, therefore to constantly seek out new sales and sources in every corner of the planet, to endlessly invent [new needs]. … ‘[C]onsumerism’ is not just a ‘cultural pattern,’ it’s not just ‘commercial brainwashing’ or an ‘infantile regression.’ … Insatiable consumerism is an everyday requirement of capitalist reproduction, and this drives capitalist invention and imperial expansion. No overconsumption, no growth, no jobs. And no voluntarist ‘cultural transformation’ is going to overcome this fundamental imperative so long as the economic system depends on over-consumption for its day-to-day survival.”

There is no way out other than replacing capitalism with a steady-state economy based on meeting human needs, and that could only be attained through bottom-up, democratic control. No one promises new jobs to those who would be displaced under capitalism; logically, then, those who jobs and ability to earn a living is dependent on polluting or wasteful industries resist environmental initiatives. The wholesale changes that are necessary to prevent a global environmental catastrophe can’t be accomplished under the present economic system; it would require a different system with the flexibility to re-deploy labor in large numbers when industries are reduced or eliminated, and one that would have no need to grow. Inequality would have to be eliminated for any kind of global democratic economy to be able to function.

Dr. Smith pronounces this “a tall order to be sure.” That it is. But with many world cities, and entire countries, at risk of becoming inhabitable due to rising sea levels, more erratic weather and an accelerated timetable to deplete the world’s resources, what choice do we have? Green capitalism is not only not green, it is worse than illusion because of the false hope it dangles in front of our eyes.





September nef Newsletter

20 09 2013

I used to get ODAC newsletters by email, but ODAC sort of disappeared, taken over by this nef crowd….  who don’t appear to have their own website, so I’ve decided to circulate them here because they are chockers full of great info/links that anyone interested in Peak Energy will like to follow up on.

new economics foundation

Good morning,

It’s election time in Germany and energy policy is high on the agenda. The country’s Energiewende, a real energy revolution, is playing havoc with traditional utilities (see this week’s chart). France is also considering its options with one idea being a form of Quantitative Easing for renewables.

Aniol Esteban

Aniol Esteban

The global resource base of tight oil is huge, says a new report from IHS CERA. The study gives a potential technically recoverable resource of 300 billion barrels of oil, but don’t hold your breath for a sudden boom – extracting tight oil outside of the US market is likely to meet more obstacles and be more expensive; and even in the US shale isn’t making many energy companies rich.

World oil markets are still critically dependent on the Middle East and conventional oil. Even with a 4.8million bpd increase in global liquids production since 2005 – largely thanks to North American shale oil and tar sands – the market remains tight and new production is coming at a significant price. Saudi Arabia is pumping at its highest levels since the 70s to make up for shortfalls from Libya and Iran.

The UK fracking debate continues this week as former scientific advisor Sir David King stepped in to warn of the “enormous environmental consequences”. Energy minister Ed Davey was also seen to contradict the PM’s line that shale gas would bring down prices, saying that “It is highly unlikely to happen here. There isn’t enough shale gas in the UK and in Europe to change the European market price.” 

Best wishes,

Aniol Esteban
Head of Environment, nef

Three things you shouldn’t miss this week

  1. Chart of the week: German energy prices on the futures market versus economic breakeven of different types of power plants

    Gas – Natural gas, Braunkohle – Brown coal, Steinkohle – Hard coal, Atomkraft – nuclear
    Source: thegwpf 
  2. The Economic and Political Consequences of the Last 10 Years of Renewable Energy Development – – A lot of rather unusual things have been happening in the Germany power sector lately, from negative prices, to utilities closing down brand new power plants and, naturally, a ferocious debate as to whether to cut support for renewable energy (as has already been done in Spain).
  3. The peak in world oil production is yet to come – – Certainly world oil production did not stop growing in 2005. Last year’s total was estimated by the EIA to be 4.8 million barrels higher each day than it had been in 2005.

The Headlines

Oil & Gas

Shale: Come the revolution – There is lots of shale about, but will anybody make any money from it?
IHS: World’s tight oil resources hold large potential – The world has large potential technical recoverable resources of tight oil possibly several times those of North America, according to a recent geological study by global analytics firm IHS.
Record Saudi oil output fills supply gap – The US might be drowning in oil, but the world is still dependent on Saudi Arabia.
Exploration: Rising cost of complex projects hits majors – It is now three years since the devastating accident at BP’s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, and it is business as usual for the oil majors drilling in the area’s lucrative waters. Apart from one thing: costs.

Colorado Flooding Imperils Oil and Gas Sites, Causes Spill – In the wake of unprecedented massive flooding over thousands of square miles in Colorado, government officials and private companies are rushing to secure the region’s heavy concentration of oil and natural gas wells, and prevent dangerous chemicals and toxic waste from contaminating the region’s water.

Electricity

France considers cash creation to finance energy transition – A French government advisory body has suggested that the European Central Bank create money – via loans to other financial institutions – in order to support the transition to renewable energies, claiming the proposed system would not necessarily fuel inflation.
Romantic Germany risks economic decline as green dream spoils – Germany is committing slow economic suicide. It has staked its future on heavy industry and manufacturing, yet has no energy policy to back this up.
Germany’s renewable energy experiment comes at a cost – The shift away from nuclear power and fossil fuels is Germany’s most complex undertaking since reunification two decades ago.

Nuclear

County councils sidelined from nuclear waste dump site decisions – Energy department policy makes district councils lead authority on locating waste dumps, which Cumbria county council says abandons big society
Shutdown of Japan’s Last Nuclear Reactor Raises Power Concerns – Japan’s last operating nuclear reactor was halted for maintenance yesterday, leaving the country nuclear free for the first time since July 2012 and prompting concerns about power availability this winter.

Biofuels

Food price fears push EU lawmakers to put a lid on biofuels growth – The European Parliament has voted to limit the use of fuels made from food crops because of fears that biofuels can push up grain prices or damage the climate, further undermining the once booming industry.

UK Policy

Sir David King warns against fracking – Former UK scientific adviser says gas from unconventional sources could have huge environmental consequences
Fracking won’t lower energy bills, says Davey – Fracking for shale gas in the UK will not have “any effect” on gas prices, Ed Davey, the energy secretary has said, contradicting the Prime Minister’s promise that it will lead to lower energy bills.
Fracking won’t endanger UK’s climate targets, says Ed Davey – Minister talks of shale gas ushering a ‘green future’, but report warns global emissions will rise without international climate deal
Offshore wind farms need higher subsidies, says government adviser – Offshore wind farms may not be built unless subsidies are increased, the government’s official climate change adviser has warned, in the latest blow to the Coalition’s energy policy.
Lib Dems’ nuclear U-turn shows they realise we can’t say ‘no’ to everything – Party’s ditching of mistaken policy signals they understand we face serious challenges of energy security and climate change.

Climate

Swedish pension funds urged to dump fossil fuel holdings – Sweden’s cluster of state pension funds face political pressure to divest from all of their fossil fuel holdings.

Related Reports and Commentaries

GREEN STANDARD 2013: A review of UK political leadership on the environment since the 2010 general election – Campaign for Better Transport, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Green Alliance, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts and WWF
The Energy Crunch team: Simone Osborn, David Strahan, Aniol Esteban, Tim Jenkins
These e-mails were formerly sent from ODAC, which was taken over by nef in March 2012. To see the archive of ODAC newsletters follow this link.