Conghaileach
9th November 2002, 15:01
"Why is Tony Blair an appeaser?"
By George Monbiot
from Dawn (Pakistan), Nov. 6/02
LONDON: Tony Blair's loyalty to George Bush looks like slow political
suicide. His preparedness to follow him over every precipice
jeopardizes Britain's relationships with its allies , conjures up
enemies all over the world and infuriates voters of all political
colours. And yet he never misses an opportunity to show what a trusting
friend he is.
There are several plausible and well-established explanations for this
unnatural coupling. But there might also be a new one. Blair may have
calculated that sticking to Bush is the only way in which our
unsustainable economy can meet its need for energy.
Britain is running out of time. According to the Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre the UK's North sea production has been declining since 1999.
Nuclear power in Britain is, in effect, finished: on Saturday the EU
revealed that it had prohibited the government's latest desperate
attempt to keep it afloat with massive subsidies. But, partly because
of corporate lobbying, partly because of his unhealthy fear of "Mondeo
man" or "Worcester woman", or whatever the floating voter of Middle
England has now become, Tony Blair has also flatly rejected both an
effective energy reduction policy and a massive investment in
alternative power.
The only remaining way of meeting future energy demand is to import
ever greater quantities of oil and gas.
And here the government runs into an intractable political reality. As
available reserves decline, the world's oil-hungry nations are tussling
to grab as much as they can for themselves. Almost everywhere on earth
the United States is winning.
It is positioning itself to become the gatekeeper to the world's
remaining oil and gas. If it succeeds, it will both secure its own
future supplies and massively enhance its hegemonic power.
The world's oil reserves, the depletion analysis centre claims, appear
to be declining almost as swiftly as the North sea's. Conventional oil
supplies will peak within five or 10 years, and decline by around 2
million barrels per day every year from then on. New kinds of fossil
fuel have only a limited potential to ameliorate the coming crisis. In
the Middle East, the only nation which could significantly increase its
output is Iraq.
In 2001, a report sponsored by the US Council on Foreign Relations and
the Baker Institute for Public Policy began to spell out some of the
implications of this decline for America's national security. The
problem, it noted, is that "the American people continue to demand
plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience".
Transport, for example, is responsible for 66 per cent of the petroleum
the US burns. Simply switching from "light trucks" (the giant gas-
guzzlers many Americans drive) to ordinary cars would save nearly a
million barrels per day of crude oil. But, as the president's dad once
said, "the American way of life is not up for negotiation."
Full Story (http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/06/int9.htm)
By George Monbiot
from Dawn (Pakistan), Nov. 6/02
LONDON: Tony Blair's loyalty to George Bush looks like slow political
suicide. His preparedness to follow him over every precipice
jeopardizes Britain's relationships with its allies , conjures up
enemies all over the world and infuriates voters of all political
colours. And yet he never misses an opportunity to show what a trusting
friend he is.
There are several plausible and well-established explanations for this
unnatural coupling. But there might also be a new one. Blair may have
calculated that sticking to Bush is the only way in which our
unsustainable economy can meet its need for energy.
Britain is running out of time. According to the Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre the UK's North sea production has been declining since 1999.
Nuclear power in Britain is, in effect, finished: on Saturday the EU
revealed that it had prohibited the government's latest desperate
attempt to keep it afloat with massive subsidies. But, partly because
of corporate lobbying, partly because of his unhealthy fear of "Mondeo
man" or "Worcester woman", or whatever the floating voter of Middle
England has now become, Tony Blair has also flatly rejected both an
effective energy reduction policy and a massive investment in
alternative power.
The only remaining way of meeting future energy demand is to import
ever greater quantities of oil and gas.
And here the government runs into an intractable political reality. As
available reserves decline, the world's oil-hungry nations are tussling
to grab as much as they can for themselves. Almost everywhere on earth
the United States is winning.
It is positioning itself to become the gatekeeper to the world's
remaining oil and gas. If it succeeds, it will both secure its own
future supplies and massively enhance its hegemonic power.
The world's oil reserves, the depletion analysis centre claims, appear
to be declining almost as swiftly as the North sea's. Conventional oil
supplies will peak within five or 10 years, and decline by around 2
million barrels per day every year from then on. New kinds of fossil
fuel have only a limited potential to ameliorate the coming crisis. In
the Middle East, the only nation which could significantly increase its
output is Iraq.
In 2001, a report sponsored by the US Council on Foreign Relations and
the Baker Institute for Public Policy began to spell out some of the
implications of this decline for America's national security. The
problem, it noted, is that "the American people continue to demand
plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience".
Transport, for example, is responsible for 66 per cent of the petroleum
the US burns. Simply switching from "light trucks" (the giant gas-
guzzlers many Americans drive) to ordinary cars would save nearly a
million barrels per day of crude oil. But, as the president's dad once
said, "the American way of life is not up for negotiation."
Full Story (http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/06/int9.htm)