Lenin memorably defined communism as Marxism plus electricity: and who’d want to find out what capitalism minus electricity would be like ? The
In the middle of this comes a highly illuminating contribution jointly from Greenpeace and the WWF, who’ve commissioned consultants Pรถyry to ‘prove’ that no new coal stations or nukes are required to keep the lights on - because renewables can do the trick. Here’s what they say.
“The report finds that, if the UK Government is able to achieve its commitments to meet EU renewable energy targets and its own ambitious action plan to reduce demand through energy efficiency, then major new power stations (burning either coal or gas) would not be needed to ensure that Britain can meet its electricity requirements up to at least 2020” (WWF)
“We can plug the 'energy gap' without building big new power plants - whether they're coal or nuclear powered. And to do it, the government just needs to meet its existing energy efficiency and renewables targets” (Greenpeace)
‘If’, and ‘just’ – how much is swept along with those words ! As we’ve said before, if an athlete just runs 30% faster, he can run the 3-minute mile But he can’t. So he won’t.
As part of our usual service to readers, C@W has read the report, which inevitably skates lightly over several critical issues. Firstly, it accepts the
If … just … nope: it’s CAN’T & WON’T.
And of course HMG knows this all too well. Expect Kingsnorth to get the go-ahead. Sorry, George Monbiot, but efficient new coal plant has a key role in keeping the lights on.
ND
6 comments:
No, Lenin did not say that - the correct quote is:
". . . soviet power plus electricity equals Communism"
Further, your assertion that Capitalism needs more energy is only correct because of the enormous over-production of the Capitalist system. This resulting huge wastage, that you strangely do not recognise being a mindless supporter of the capitalist system.
well thanks, anon, I had indeed googled the quotation and found half a dozen different translations, so I went with the simple one
but I am duly chastised, and my deflated mood is only lightened by the thought that we are now attracting a lively Marxist readership
if, however, I might repond with a bit of pedantry of my own, I think upon re-reading the post you'll agree I never said that capitalism requires more energy. Au contraire, I happen to think, (and have posted here before) that there is a lot of scope for greater energy efficiency
as regards over-production and wastage, me old matey, I think you will find the real waste was when we had a gold-plated state monopoly power generation system of grotesque over-capacity, which built uneconomic nukes for the amusement of the engineers
when will it become clear that we need some cross ideology consensus, with sound economics for a real long term energy policy. i'm all for energy efficiency, renewables and microgeneration, but not when its half baked pseudoscience, and costed on the back of an envelope. i havent read monbiot's column today yet, im saving it for a chuckle at lunchtime!
....that you strangely do not recognise being a mindless supporter of the capitalist system.
Oh dear!
He won't like my stamp duty post later on.
"All property is theft" and all that!
"costed on the back of an envelope": I'm confident that it's not as sophisticated as that.
Over production! Well yes I suppose some of us do live at a slightly higher than subsistence level!
Post a Comment