Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Independent UK: For all the anger around the world, the era of cheap fuel has ended

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 06:22 PM
Original message
Independent UK: For all the anger around the world, the era of cheap fuel has ended
Leading article: For all the anger around the world, the era of cheap fuel has ended

Saturday, 31 May 2008



Gordon Brown this week described the present economic crisis as the third great "oil shock" of recent decades. In fact, there are important differences between the present situation and the energy shocks of the 1970s. The cause of the high price of oil in that unhappy era was Middle Eastern producers cutting back supply for political reasons; the fundamental reason for soaring prices today is a surge in demand from the rapidly growing economies of Asia. Yet the Prime Minister was justified in drawing a comparison with regard to the political ramifications.

This has been a week of fuel protests across Europe. Fishermen from France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and Spain have gone on strike, some blockading ports. Hauliers in Britain have clogged London with their vehicles. Dutch lorry drivers and French farmers have staged similar demonstrations. In America, there have even been bizarre cases of thieves stealing chip fat for power. There have been political fuel protests too. The leader of the Scottish executive, Alex Salmond, has chosen the opportunity to pick a fight with Westminster over the distribution of the proceeds from the UK's North Sea oil fields. All these events have a common cause: the fact that oil is now trading on international markets at around $130 a barrel and consumers are feeling the pinch. The political response has not been encouraging so far. The French President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed a Europe-wide cap on fuel VAT. Labour MPs, desperate to hang on to their seats beyond the next election, are demanding a suspension of the planned 2p rise in fuel duty and the new, more environmentally progressive, vehicle excise duties.

And our Government, despite Mr Brown's grasp of the scale of the problem, has resorted to impotent posturing: demanding that Opec, the oil-producing cartel, increase production and handing out permits for more oil drilling in Britain's inexorably declining North Sea fields. Meanwhile, the main thrust of yesterday's "fuel poverty" alleviation proposals was to continue subsidising home heating.

Subsidies and tax cuts will only put off the pain that needs to be endured if we are to reconfigure our economies to run on renewable energy. Governments around the world ought to be explaining to their citizens that the era of cheap fuel is over. The present spike might (indeed probably will) subside, but global demand will not fall back significantly, nor will pressures on supply. Put simply, the world's oil is running low just as more countries desire it.

This means we need to begin the long overdue task of breaking our reliance on the power source of fossil fuels. Governments and businesses need to invest heavily in sustainable energy sources, such as wind turbines, solar and wave power. And there must be a concerted effort from all of us to conserve energy. The transition must be carefully and sensitively managed, of course. In terms of domestic heating costs, this means governments (especially those in colder nations) heavily subsidising home insulation, energy conservation and micro-generation schemes. And some developing world governments with high food prices (one of the consequences of higher energy costs) will need help from richer countries to ensure that their people do not starve.

But the very thing governments should not be doing is bowing to popular pressure to interfere in the market to make energy less expensive. The oil shocks of the 1970s were followed by three decades of cheap oil and gas. The energy conservation and diversification projects established in those years were rapidly discarded. The economics are radically different this time. Our response must be radically different too.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-for-all-the-anger-around-the-world-the-era-of-cheap-fuel-has-ended-837431.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Necessity is the mother of invention.
As bad as the costs of fuel have become, it may be the start of serious searches for new energy sources. Just like the guy who needs a heart attack to start adressing his cholestorol levels, the spike in oil prices will cause progress in alternative methods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. There's something I still don't get
Call me stupid, but I don't understand how oil could have more than doubled in a little over one year. Oil was trading below $60 a barrel in early 2007. Now, it's well over $120. Has demand more than doubled in one year? This article says that it's just a matter of supply and demand and that "the very thing governments should not be doing is bowing to popular pressure to interfere in the market to make energy less expensive". So we have to just forget about looking into the reason oil more than doubled since 2007 and instead focus on alternative energy? What happens if speculators suddenly rush in to drive up the price of sugar cane, sugar beets, uranium, solar technology or any other alternative energy sources? Something tells me we need a change in the way the world economy works or we'll never really have affordable sources of energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. it couldn't have. you're right. so long as the rich can ruin
ordinary people by moving money, so long as ordinary people can't get honest information about their own condition from the media controlled by the wealthy, the rest is next to pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC