Here we go again -- Gazprom (Russia) is going to turn off the taps.

[eleusis]

Oh but it won't effect supplies to Western Europe. Yeah, okay, you said that last year. And it did.

And it's politically motivated becasue Gaxprom's only ties to the goverment are through the board. Oh okay, that insignificant then.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7233401.stm

CORRECTION:
And it's not politically motivated becasue Gazprom's only ties to the goverment are through the board. Oh okay, that is insignificant then.

You know, situations like these really emphasise the necessity to lessen out dependance on fossil fuels and really invest money on the alternatives (instead of the pathetic palliative investments up to now). Had gas and oil not been so important, Putin wouldn't have been able to strong arm his way to an election win quite so easily and the rest of the world wouldn't have been quite so reticent to condemn him. Ditto with oil and the Middle East. It seems that most of the current reserives are in the hands of despots and nutters and the west is supporting them because of this.

Having your energy supplies dictated by another country is a stupid place to be. We should save our dwindling oil and gas for the UK and work on our renewables so as a country we can be energy self-sufficient. Even being beholden to the Arab States for oil is a vunerable position. And Energy should be state-run. Its too important to let private companies have it, as they think only of profit, not security.
We got coal fires and we are saving up to get solar panels one day.
But this is only going to get wosre as the fossil fuels are energy depend on run down. Geologists say we are now over the Peak for oil. the 50% already got is the easy stuff. Now it will get expensive and harder to find.
And what Govt is stupid enough to sell energy and water and transport to foreign firms.
oh yeah. Ours.

Sorry, crap typing, cat on my lap.

To sum up briefly - This is just another example of how fossil fuels are bad for the planet. Rant over.

Could save oil for important stuff like plastics (we need those for medicine) rather than leaping in a car to get a pint of milk. Who needs 2 tons of metal to go getch 10 kilos of shopping?

Well, I can't agree on Peak Oil. I very much respect and recommend Daniel Yergin (www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/home/home.aspx)

The supply is limited, I agree there. We are using oil ang gas faster than they can be replaced. So, one day, if we continue, it will run out (or become too difficult and therefore too expensive to extract). But, Peak Oil theories are definitely scare mongering. We have not yet reached that crisis.

But, I agree we should explore other sources of energy. Not only becauwe we need to conserve what oil we do have for important things (such as plastics for medical use), but also because monsters like Putin can and will use it against us.

We have reached a crisis in this country though - we will have electricity shortfalls in about 7 years time. Even more scary is Putin extricating Russia from all of the arms treaties which stopped the Cold War and arms race.

So we should support nuclear until such time that there is another viable energy source.

And I am all for research to explore more energy sources. But, right now, we don't have one.

I think people who oppose wind farms because it spoils their pretty landscape are being silly.

And of course, we are, I fear, on the brink of a world recession partly driven by the high cost of fossil fuels. Not solely, but partly.

Thankfully, we have had a relatively warm winter and that has kept demand down.

Incidentally, did you know that Gazprom aims to control 15% of the UK gas market This is a very bad thing for the UK's national security.

Ironically, global warming is helping to reduce our dependancy on Russia. Every cloud has a silver lining.

I agree that there is no viable alternative to nuclear at the moment so we have to build more nuclear power stations. I also think that wind energy is, like some biofuels, a red herring. Sustainable energy is all about de-centralisation - local farmer supplying power from cow muck/biomass, solar panels/mini turbines on houses, much better efficiency etc.

We're only in this sorry state of no alternative to nuclear because no one up to now has invested seriously in research in other sources. I mean (banal example) why are we still driving vehicles that rely on internal combustion? Surely with all the technology available in the last few decades it must have been feasible to find an alternative method of propulsion/alternative energy source. But no, there was no economic interest in doing so and vehicle manufacturers were disincentivised by the oil companies, as were governments.

I suspect that not enough is going into sustainable energy because the govt won't be able to tax consumption and so would lose a huge amount of revenue. They would rather fine people for polluting/make people pay for the right to pollute and carry on kowtowing to the despots of the world, so as to keep money flowing into their coffers.

I don't think it's fair to say that we haven't done much research in finding an alternative. Fuel cells for example got quite a lot of attention last decade.

Biofuels aren't really much of a solution since they too produce CO2.

But, I do think you are right that the government probably is not anxious to give up the tax revenue. And I do think the main reason for green taxes is revenue generation and not the enviroment.

Exactly my thoughts re the biofuels (even more polluting possibly, both for the CO2 emmissions and rainforest destruction, as well as taking food out of the mouths of the poor) and green taxes, but I do believe there'd have been a lot more development in alternative sources had there been more money poured into it.

Now it's cool to be seen to be green but a lot of private investors are still cherrypicking too much and not risking enough on the bigger schemes. What's needed is heavy commitment from the govt, which is not going to be forthcoming because of a relatively small economic return in the immediate future and political unpopularity from the electorate when lifestyles will have to be adjusted.

So, where do propse this money should come from? And should it be done in the UK or globally?

Ideally it should be the richer nations, but seeing they've got the most to lose in the short term it ain't gonna happen. Maybe it should be left to the UN to impose a levy on all member nations (on a sliding scale of wealth) and put that money into a research fund. Alas, there will probably be blanket vetoes against such an idea by the usual culprits so that's pie in the sky too.

The sad thing is that globally everyone would benefit, once past the huge initial outlay of research and drastically overhauliing existing systems. The poorer countries will benefit the most by a) not being dependent on a high cost commodity and being able to rely on free sustainable sources such as sunlight (which the poorer countries in the south of the world have in abundance) and b) no longer having to deal with the fallout from the rich west's thirst for fossil fuels, such as global warming, deforestation and biofuel cultivation at the expense of food. The richer nations will no longer have to brown nose a lot of unpleasant regimes and long term they can benefit from lower running costs, once start up costs are amortised (is that a word? I can't remember how to say it in English). Of course there would be less tax revenue, but govts have always had a knack for generating money from the populace. I know this is terribly idealistic and unrealistic, but I do despair about the world we live in and the people running it.

You are right this notion that rich countries should pay for everything is not going to be supported by many people -- including me.

I was actually enquiring about more specific details, like we could say cap MP's expense accounts, not give them a raise, and use the savings to fund research at universities x, y, and z. And get corporate sponsorship from rover who would inturn benefit from the technology which could used exclusively in Rover cars for say three years before releasing such technological advances to the open car manufacturing market. This would slos possible help revive the UK manufacturing industry in the midlands, which is currently hurting.

Oh, but there wouldn't be any tax gain in it for Gordon Brown. So prbably not going to get Labour support.

Or, here's a stellar plan... How bout Ken takes 50 % of his take on the congestion charge and hand it over to national rain for maintenance and upgrades, hence encouraging people to use a subsidised rail... oh, but the real purpose of that congestion charge is actually revenue generation and nowt to do with the clean air.

Needmorecoffee - entirely agree. Have read some very interesting books recently (The Last Oil Shock, Beyond Oil, Half Gone, The End of Oil...Peak Oil is well documented, yet you still get the bozos campaigning for cheaper pertrol s they can do their 70+ mile daily air-conditoned commute in the comfort of their (single occupancy) guzzler (I work in Sales, and so know lots of these types). And spineless Gordon is too cowardly to upset his voters by putting up fuel duty, or applying duty to airline fuel.
Where I live, people are campaigning against Heathrow getting a sixth ( seventh? losing count) terminal and another runway, but everyone seems to ignore the fact that air travel cannot increase because there is not likley to be a viable alternative when oil becomes scarce enough to be reserved for vital manufacturing.

Eleusis - where does the congestion charge go? Doesn't it go on the London public transport system? Actually, stupid question, judging from how much it costs. Forgive me, I've been awayfrom the UK for a long time.

I'm not sure, but I think it goes to police. While that's a perfectly reasonable place to spend money, it doesn't actually have anything to do with the environment. So why take money in the name of being green and then not put to a green cause -- unless of course the congestion charge is merely an excuse to raise revenue, which of course it is.

How were the police paid before the congestion charge?

As it stands now, it is more expensive to travel by train than by car. So if we want to get people out of cars and onto the train (because it is good for the environment) then subsidise the trains and as they become more affordable, people will get on them. Seems obvious to me!!

And this is of course not unrelated.

I thought the congestion charge was specifically to fund improvements in public transport?

We were bloody stupid to abandon the coal mines. This country is built on bloody coal - literally. With carbon capture technology (OK, taking a leap of faith that it might actually work in practice) we could be a lot more self-sufficient. Instead we've wasted billions of pounds tearing communities apart, creating a legacy of deprivation, while leaving this country dependent on the whims of foreign energy producers.

Yes it is, trains are subsidised in Italy, they're really cheap, as is the public transport (well, compared to London), yet Italians are welded to their cars. A lot of freight is moved by rail in continental Europe and tbh I've not seen much rail freight in the UK, it all seems to be lorries.

I remember when Ken was head of the GLC (showing my age) and he upped the rates to subsidise the buses and was forced to back down. That's why I naturally assumed the money was being used the same way.

If we want to clean up our environment, I don't think coal is a great option. But what is "carbon capture technology"? Is this CCT (clean coal technology)?

But, irrespective of it's effect on the environment,we can only expect to mine coal when it is financially viable to do so.

nuclear power isn't going to be an answer. Uranium (also a finite resource) has to be mined and uses fossil fuels to do so. The Uk also don't have any thus making us depednat on other countries. Building, running and decommissioning a nuclear power station (they only last about 25 years) is enormously expensive in money and fossil fuels and keeping the radioactive stuff stage for 250,000 years is beyond aour capabilities (and costs even more energy)
If we paid the true costs of electrcity from the nuclear industry our bills would rocket.
Nuclear also doesn't address most of our energry needs - growing food, harvesting food, getting food to people, transport, getting to work, plastics etc etc
To me, A guvmint should be about the people. How do we keep our people warm, dry, fed, well and happy? Thats what a Guvmint should be doing. Yet its all about profit and big business which is why we sell our vital utilities to any old company. I don't feel safe having private companies control my water supply. If I become poor I will die of thirst because their duty isn't to the population but to their shareholders.
And water is going to be a scary resource thing soon.