As most of us will have noticed by now when it comes to fuel (energy) prices they can go up and down a little in the short-term, but the longer term trend is always (at least for hydro-carbons) upwards. This is unavoidable due to increasing demands for more energy (particularly from energy hungry India and China), a growing planetary population and the short term nature of our planet's hydro carbon fuel reserves. This trend is easy to plot (even in the short term) and the medium and long-term consequences of being dependent upon energy resources that you don't actually control is pretty self evident.
Primary energy is energy supplied without being transformed e.g. crude oil, natural gas, and coal. Around two thirds of UK primary energy demand is met from domestic production. Coal accounted for barely 4% of final energy consumption by fuel in 2010. Virtually all UK oil and gas production occurs under the seas surrounding the UK. UK oil production peaked in 1999, and gas production peaked in 2000. Since then the UK has moved from a position of self-sufficiency to one of increasing dependence on imported oil and gas.
By 2009, imported gas accounted for around 32% of the total gas used. 58% comes from Norway, 25% from liquefied natural gas (LNG) from various different countries, some 16% came from the Netherlands, and 2% came via the Belgian inter-connector pipeline. The increased reliance on imported oil and gas leaves the UK more open to supply risks associated with global supply constraints and price volatility. The UK Government plans to reduce the need for oil and gas imports, by pushing primary energy production, and by developing low-carbon alternatives such as electric vehicles, biofuels and fuel efficiency.
Sadly this is a case of better late than never, as the previous New Labour Westminster Government and the current Con Dem government should have been working with the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to develop an energy strategy to end these isles dependency on unstable overseas energy sources and dubious suppliers and lead to energy independence. In recent years, Vladimir Putin's periodic squeeze on gas exports to the Ukraine, through which 80 per cent of Russian gas exports to the EU flows, should have highlighted the real dangers of relying on imported energy from unreliable sources.
President Putin's Russia with full coffers and rode out the consequences of fluctuating oil prices and appears to have managed to avoid any real consequences of declining cash reserves and having its economy is heavily reliant on oil and gas exports. Some countries subsidise their fuel prices (how sustainable that is over the medium to longer term is open to debate), in the UK this does not happen, everybody wins, Government gets vastly more tax revenue, the oil companies get more profit, and us the ordinary punters get regularly fleeced.
When it comes to gas, some countries made efforts to protect themselves against external shocks to their energy needs; France was able to store 122 days of gas and Germany able to store 99 days worth (2009 figures). Here in the UK the almost entirely market driven approach turned out to be entirely inadequate, in the UK had a storage capacity which would have lasted for only 15 days (2009 figures). Some countries discuss the issue of energy independence at the highest level here I get the impression that here in the UK it is best avoided, with the occasional exception.
The New Labour Government took the best part of a decade to recognise the need to increase storage capacity and the UK has been playing catch up ever since. One consequence of the lack of storage capacity was that UK had to sell gas during the summer and purchase gas again when it is needed in the winter. The Conservatives headlong dash to gas in the 1980’s was compounded by an abject failure in strategic energy planning. The situation has been made worse by the current Government's perverse decision to half-heartedly look at developing diverse reliable alternative energy sources.
The last New Labour Government and the current Con Dem Government largely ignored repeated warnings that the lack of sustainable energy has set the UK on a path towards higher prices and blackouts. Over the next four to six years almost all of our old nuclear reactors, along with nine major coal and oil-fired power stations, will be run down and closed, with nothing ready to replace them. We are now in the situation where we will become even more dependent upon imported gas from either unstable regions or dubious suppliers.
The Con Dem’s solution to this is to rush to go Nuclear and to effectively hand the Nuclear industry lock stock and barrel over to French energy companies who are busy paying off large loans to the French government. Since 1997, what successive Westminster Governments should have done was to work with the devolved governments and the Irish Government to make these islands entirely self sufficient via renewable non market driven energy resources run by not for profit companies. They should have developed a flexible self-sufficient energy development strategy that encourages decentralised micro-generation. This could create jobs, useful skills and bootstrap the economy out of the recession as well as helping consumers by delivering community beneficial energy schemes.
Wales needs real direction not Carwyn's platitudes when it comes to the development of safe and secure energy resources and full control of energy planning. The renewable energy sector can play an immensely important role in creating more green energy jobs. We need to create sustainable long-term jobs for local people, not damage the environment and to provide our communities with a long-term viable economic energy future, that's the real future dividend for our communities rather than the shareholders in the City.
Showing posts with label Vladimir Putin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vladimir Putin. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Monday, 5 March 2012
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
ALEXEI NAVALNY RELEASED
 |
| Alexei Navalny (REUTERS) |
Monday, 12 December 2011
TIME FOR A REAL RUSSIAN REVOLUTION?
The current wave of demonstrations and protests in Russia over what outside observers have said were seriously flawed elections are important, but, they may not yet be another Russian revolution, even though one is well overdue. The focus of the protests have been Vladimir Putin (current Prime Minister and previous two-term President) and his ruling United Russia party, who has stated his intention to run again for President of Russia in 2012.
United Russia, known to some Russians as ‘the Party of Thieves and Swindlers' (because of its fairly blatant involvement in corruption) suffered a significant and visible electoral setback in Russian elections a week ago. Embarrassingly for Putin his United Russia's visibly reduced vote was only made possible by widespread and well organised electoral fraud.
Unfortunately this time the traditional ballot stuffing procedure was actually filmed by opposition protesters and plastered across the internet for the world and ordinary Russians to see. What followed has been some of the largest Russia wide public protests since the demise of the Soviet Union. From one end of Russia to the other, large crowds have gathered openly and loudly demanding that the elections be re-run.
The protesters raised a number of common key issues:
• freedom for political prisoners;
• the annulment of the election results;
• the resignation of Vladimir Churov (who heads the election commission);
• the opening of an official investigation into vote fraud;
• the registration of opposition parties
• new democratic legislation on parties and elections;
• new democratic and open elections.
What we are witnessing may not be the end of the Russian oligarchy more likely it's the end of the beginning of the end of the oligarchy. A Russian spring may yet be some way off, that said it's probably worth a recap of how Russia got here. Russia has only recently emerged from 70 years of Soviet style Communist tyranny. For many Russians the nine years of relative democracy under Yeltsin were pretty grim difficult years.
The country's living standards plummeted collapsed, criminality on many levels openly flourished and the country's assets were looted (sorry privatised) and pillaged for quick profits and any social consequences of the privatisation process were simply ignored. Any remaining influence that the inheritor state of the USSR had abroad for good or bad was squandered. The West lectured the re-emergent Russia rather than helping the Russians to bed in democratic and legal processes and looked for rich pickings.
It was not wonder that for many Russian's the arrival of Vladimir Putin, in 1999, was a breath of fresh air and stability. While Putin's methods were far from gentle, the results were relatively spectacular, as order was re-established. Living standards (fed by a rise in world oil prices) rapidly shot up and Russia influence overseas mattered. The price was a mercenary driven fraudulent political system – which to many seemed a small price worth paying at the time.
Despite the fact that the system was inherently fragile Putin/Medvedev popularity peaked at around 80 per cent or more. The unfolding Ukrainian Orange revolution caused panic in the Kremlin and led to a significant spend of accumulated oil money to dampen down any social protest and discontent. Internationally Russia has consistently worked to thwart any potential international support for the “Arab Spring” and is working to block any effective UN Security Council action on Syria.
The question is has the wheel begun to come of Putin's wagon? And if so why? One reason why Putin's star may be fading is that much of the planet is in recession and the demand for oil and gas has fallen (which leads to a corresponding drop in revenues) and a drop in Russian economic growth. Putin is also facing a new younger generation of Russian politicians and ordinary Russians who have no nostalgia for a watered down Soviet pastiche. The new younger Russians are well educated and well-travelled who are desirous of the same material benefits and civic society as the rest of us Europeans.
And thanks to the internet (which is free in Russia – now that's a novel concept) they know exactly who other societies function and how well or how badly people live. We and the modern Russians are no longer living in the 1980’s, despite the lack of free press and any real degree of impartiality in the Russian state (or oligarch) controlled mass media, most Russians can simply go on-lien to see what state their country is in and as Lenin said ‘What needs to be done?’
Ironically it was a failure on the part of the coup plotters in the old Soviet Union to understand the impact of faxes (the then brand spanking new communications technology)during the coup attempt in August 1991 that brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union. Perhaps it will be internet and various internet applications that will bring down the oligarchs in Russia the dame way it has brought down the tyrants in the Middle East.
We may see the start of a belated attempt to close the open door that is the internet over the next few weeks and months in Russia. Certainly last week, Alexei Navalny, one of Russia’s best-known opposition figure and a crusading anti-corruption blogger, was somewhat cack-handedly and un-subtly locked up. In recent months democratic opponents of United Russia have been detained without trial in psychiatric hospitals in an unpleasant echo of the old Soviet Union.
Naturally Putin has put the blame for the protests on Western driven agitation – any old Soviet ploy. The Russians election period saw a significant increase in web based attacks on opposition websites and discussion forums. A veritable flood of pro-Putin and pro-regime tweets has taken place. If the Putin regime survives these current protests this is one problem won't go away and potentially a problem that cannot simply be bought off beyond the short term with a wedge of oil money from Russian government slush funds.
While the March presidential election is important it is very likely that Putin (who is still popular with many ordinary Russians) will win it. Russian authorities have played fast and loose with elections and electoral law in the past and opposition candidates may find themselves outside the electoral process next year. The Russians state, despite the economic downturn, has around $100 billion to dip into as pre-election sweeteners between now and polling day.
It is worth remembering that the Kremlin machine can play subtle and well as hard ball when it wants to or feels the need to. Russia is a powerful state and is flush with gas and lucrative energy contracts and is pretty willing to use control of its energy supplies against those states that won't toe the line. So what should we in the energy hungry / energy dependent West do about the situation in Russia? In recent years, Western governments repeatedly looked the other way when elections have been stolen or rigged in Russia or kept their silence.
Officially the Russian state has signed and committed itself to conventions committing itself to open political debate, fair elections and a free press. Russia, just like any other state should live up to those standards, and the West should be critical when Russia does not. What happens in Russia is important and Russia is an important European state and one of our neighbours. A Russian spring may well be around the corner and we may be seeing the first steps in the process that leads to Russia taking its rightful place among the other leading European democracies.
United Russia, known to some Russians as ‘the Party of Thieves and Swindlers' (because of its fairly blatant involvement in corruption) suffered a significant and visible electoral setback in Russian elections a week ago. Embarrassingly for Putin his United Russia's visibly reduced vote was only made possible by widespread and well organised electoral fraud.
Unfortunately this time the traditional ballot stuffing procedure was actually filmed by opposition protesters and plastered across the internet for the world and ordinary Russians to see. What followed has been some of the largest Russia wide public protests since the demise of the Soviet Union. From one end of Russia to the other, large crowds have gathered openly and loudly demanding that the elections be re-run.
The protesters raised a number of common key issues:
• freedom for political prisoners;
• the annulment of the election results;
• the resignation of Vladimir Churov (who heads the election commission);
• the opening of an official investigation into vote fraud;
• the registration of opposition parties
• new democratic legislation on parties and elections;
• new democratic and open elections.
What we are witnessing may not be the end of the Russian oligarchy more likely it's the end of the beginning of the end of the oligarchy. A Russian spring may yet be some way off, that said it's probably worth a recap of how Russia got here. Russia has only recently emerged from 70 years of Soviet style Communist tyranny. For many Russians the nine years of relative democracy under Yeltsin were pretty grim difficult years.
The country's living standards plummeted collapsed, criminality on many levels openly flourished and the country's assets were looted (sorry privatised) and pillaged for quick profits and any social consequences of the privatisation process were simply ignored. Any remaining influence that the inheritor state of the USSR had abroad for good or bad was squandered. The West lectured the re-emergent Russia rather than helping the Russians to bed in democratic and legal processes and looked for rich pickings.
It was not wonder that for many Russian's the arrival of Vladimir Putin, in 1999, was a breath of fresh air and stability. While Putin's methods were far from gentle, the results were relatively spectacular, as order was re-established. Living standards (fed by a rise in world oil prices) rapidly shot up and Russia influence overseas mattered. The price was a mercenary driven fraudulent political system – which to many seemed a small price worth paying at the time.
Despite the fact that the system was inherently fragile Putin/Medvedev popularity peaked at around 80 per cent or more. The unfolding Ukrainian Orange revolution caused panic in the Kremlin and led to a significant spend of accumulated oil money to dampen down any social protest and discontent. Internationally Russia has consistently worked to thwart any potential international support for the “Arab Spring” and is working to block any effective UN Security Council action on Syria.
The question is has the wheel begun to come of Putin's wagon? And if so why? One reason why Putin's star may be fading is that much of the planet is in recession and the demand for oil and gas has fallen (which leads to a corresponding drop in revenues) and a drop in Russian economic growth. Putin is also facing a new younger generation of Russian politicians and ordinary Russians who have no nostalgia for a watered down Soviet pastiche. The new younger Russians are well educated and well-travelled who are desirous of the same material benefits and civic society as the rest of us Europeans.
And thanks to the internet (which is free in Russia – now that's a novel concept) they know exactly who other societies function and how well or how badly people live. We and the modern Russians are no longer living in the 1980’s, despite the lack of free press and any real degree of impartiality in the Russian state (or oligarch) controlled mass media, most Russians can simply go on-lien to see what state their country is in and as Lenin said ‘What needs to be done?’
Ironically it was a failure on the part of the coup plotters in the old Soviet Union to understand the impact of faxes (the then brand spanking new communications technology)during the coup attempt in August 1991 that brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union. Perhaps it will be internet and various internet applications that will bring down the oligarchs in Russia the dame way it has brought down the tyrants in the Middle East.
We may see the start of a belated attempt to close the open door that is the internet over the next few weeks and months in Russia. Certainly last week, Alexei Navalny, one of Russia’s best-known opposition figure and a crusading anti-corruption blogger, was somewhat cack-handedly and un-subtly locked up. In recent months democratic opponents of United Russia have been detained without trial in psychiatric hospitals in an unpleasant echo of the old Soviet Union.
Naturally Putin has put the blame for the protests on Western driven agitation – any old Soviet ploy. The Russians election period saw a significant increase in web based attacks on opposition websites and discussion forums. A veritable flood of pro-Putin and pro-regime tweets has taken place. If the Putin regime survives these current protests this is one problem won't go away and potentially a problem that cannot simply be bought off beyond the short term with a wedge of oil money from Russian government slush funds.
While the March presidential election is important it is very likely that Putin (who is still popular with many ordinary Russians) will win it. Russian authorities have played fast and loose with elections and electoral law in the past and opposition candidates may find themselves outside the electoral process next year. The Russians state, despite the economic downturn, has around $100 billion to dip into as pre-election sweeteners between now and polling day.
It is worth remembering that the Kremlin machine can play subtle and well as hard ball when it wants to or feels the need to. Russia is a powerful state and is flush with gas and lucrative energy contracts and is pretty willing to use control of its energy supplies against those states that won't toe the line. So what should we in the energy hungry / energy dependent West do about the situation in Russia? In recent years, Western governments repeatedly looked the other way when elections have been stolen or rigged in Russia or kept their silence.
Officially the Russian state has signed and committed itself to conventions committing itself to open political debate, fair elections and a free press. Russia, just like any other state should live up to those standards, and the West should be critical when Russia does not. What happens in Russia is important and Russia is an important European state and one of our neighbours. A Russian spring may well be around the corner and we may be seeing the first steps in the process that leads to Russia taking its rightful place among the other leading European democracies.
Friday, 19 August 2011
ANNIVERSARIES...
Yet another anniversary, this time the twentieth anniversary of the failed Soviet Coup attempt which brought about the final demise of the Soviet Union. At the time I watched most of it live on TV in my office in South London with my colleagues, the defining moment was, at least from where I was sat was the moment when Boris Yeltsin walked boldly out of the White House, and climbed up onto the tank, shook hands with the tank crew and turned to speak to the crowd and the world, declaiming to the assembled Moscow residents and representatives of the worlds media, saying:
"The clouds of terror and dictatorship are gathering over the whole country. They must not be allowed to bring eternal night." and “You can make a throne of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long.”
Twenty years down the line, and with the benefit of hindsight it's pretty clear the botched coup merely speeded up the demise of the Soviet Union. With the people on the streets (the defiance was not just confined to Moscow for example 10,000 protesters flooded the square in provincial Sverdlovsk and there were no arrests) the forces of reaction stalled, blinked, drank and crumbled.
Soviet communism was finally exposed live on TV as the repressive force it was, it ended up discredited in the eyes of the Russian people and proved itself unequal to their hopes and aspirations. A one party tyranny based state that emerged from the chaos of the first world war, two revolutions and a bloody civil war some 74 years previously, quietly rolled over and died as Russia was reborn.
Yeltsin and the democrats were helped by the fact that the Soviet Coup plotters might well have had Stalinist impulses, but they thankfully lacked both the competence and the cruelty of their predecessors. The fact that the generals and the soldiers on the ground lacked the will to bathe Moscow in blood, write it up in orwellian newspeak as a victory for soviet socialism. The KGB leaders on the ground (it emerged afterwards) point blank refused to storm the White House (in St Petersburg the KGB apparently supported the Russian democrats), they were unwilling to spill so much blood, and two Generals threatened to bomb the Kremlin in retaliation if the White House was stormed.
By the time Gorbachev came back to Moscow he was literally coming back to another country. Boris Yeltsin, was now running the show and the state, Russia was back. I remember the live defining theatrical moment, when Yeltsin forced the then Soviet leader to sign the all-powerful Soviet Communist Party out of existence. The reality was that after more than 70 years the Soviet Union was rapidly dissolving day by day and moment by moment, as the various republics declared their independence and their independence was recognised by Russia and the Western powers.
What followed was a high speed and shockingly chaotic transfer of the old institutions of Soviet state to the new Russian state. On the 8th December, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus renounced the (1922) treaty that had created the Russian dominated Soviet Union. On the 25th December (our Christmas Day), Gorbachev duly resigned in a tv broadcast and accepted the dissolution of the world's second superpower, the Russian flag was duly raised over the Kremlin and the party was well and truly over, but, one mother of a hangover was to follow.
Sadly the fledgling Russian democracy was in no condition to deliver on peoples hopes and aspirations, the democrats found themselves rapidly pushed out of the corridors of power and the era of the oligarchs began. The much trumpeted privatisations brought in millions for the privatisers (and some of the former state officials) but brought in a flood tide of chaos, corruption, poverty and misery to millions of ordinary Russians. All of this may go some way to explaining why there so much disillusionment and cynicism in modern Russia today.
The Russia that emerged was quite different from its new independent neighbours, and not just in scale, but in historical experience and character. The country had suffered waves of emigration (some voluntary, some not) with the departure of aristocracy, the business and educated and professional classes. Stalin's terror, the great patriotic war and the inertia of the late 1960's, the 1970's and the 1980's all left their mark in memory, attitude and expectation.
If we are being honest, some of this is our fault, certainly in the early 1990's there was a marked failure in the West, to accept that Russia, was not the old Soviet Union. The West never reached out to Russia either economically or politically. Russia by way of comparison with the largess that was handed our to the old Soviet-bloc countries waiting to join the EU, did rather badly. The Western leaders desire to create 'a new Europe' oddly enough did not stretch to include Russia.
Instead of support and help to build democratic intuitions all Russia got was an ill-thought out hurried crash course in free-market economics not to mention a degree of criticism over Russia's failure to meet Western democratic and judicial standards. It was consummate arrogance on the part of the West to think that the western European trans-atlantic model of 'free market' capitalism would work in Russia, one size does not (and did not) fit all. When the Russian democratic system belatedly began to throw up popular choices that the West did not like then help to tweak the election results in favour of Boris Yeltsin was duly forthcoming.
The combination of institutional corruption, selective intolerance of democratic opponents, extra judicial murder of journalists (and critics of the regime), suspicious deaths in custody and occasional bouts of hyper inflation (which eradicated ordinary peoples savings), border wars and terrorism have left modern Russia and different and a depressing pseudo democratic state. Throw in the activities of the pro Kremlin media moguls (who would make News International look like a bunch of cack handed woolly headed amateurs) buying up or closing down opposition news organisations and is it any wonder that democracy in Russia stalled.
Perhaps if the Soviet Union had lingered longer and gone through more of transition to representative democracy then things might have been different. Russia was half-way through its own revolution when the Soviet Union collapsed around it. Things were different in middle and eastern Europe where the Baltic peoples and the East and Central Europeans literally overthrew the old system and started things with a reasonably clean slate. Poor old Russia was left to muddle through and to attempt to sort out several things at once.
The welcome exposure of communist ideology as the empty shell it was helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it's important to remember that the overthrow of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union were two different but intertwined processes. The events of 1990 and 1991 were as as much a clash between Russia and the Soviet Union, as visibly portrayed by the personal struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev, as they were any meaningful argument about any form of ideology.
In middle and eastern Europe the former Soviet client states were able to start anew, with new institutions and (in most countries) new people, Russia's revolution focused on a recovery and restoration of it's lost sovereignty. Russia has, amongst other things been over the last twenty years recovering its history, borders, statehood, and its historic mission. All this took place while Russia was also attempting to find its place in the new neighbourhood (near abroad) and the new world (far abroad).
With Russian statehood came a wave of re-branding and re-imaging as former Soviet institutions emerged as all Russian institutions. The old KGB for example was reborn and re-branded as the Federal Security Service (FSB), the same process took place in a host of other organisations. Yet old Soviet habits died hard and old Soviet mind sets lingered on, if not clawed back some of their previous prestige and power. Despite everything that has happened Russia has not turned into Upper Volta with nuclear weapons and no gunboats have appeared on the Volga as was predicted by some commentators in the 1990's.
Russia has not gone backwards, things are different both significantly and more subtly, modern Russia is not the former Soviet Union, we are all somewhere different. Any half baked partial restoration of the Soviet past will not work as every year that passes a new generation who have no memory of the CCCP comes through the school system. Putin, despite his faults and the work of the Kremlin spin doctors, is no Stalin, no Yeltsin, yet may be more of a Brezhnev. Personally he is one of the generation that crosses the great divide - the latter years of Soviet Union, the turbulent years of the economic and political transition from 1989 to 1992, and the free market chaos of the mid-1990s.
Putin as president and prime minister may, when the dust settles and we look back in hindsight from another twenty years in the future, have provided Russia and the Russian people with some hard earned breathing space and settled things down, but at what cost? The last twenty years have been rough for the Russian people, who have lived through a lot since 1914, war, revolutions, Stalin's terror, the great patriotic war and the gulags, not to mention Kruschev, Brezhnev and the demise of the Soviet Union. There is also the loss of Soviet Empire to consider, a Russian acquaintance once told me that the British had sixty years to get the loss of their Empire (and some have not got over the loss), while the the Russians had a fortnight - ouch!
The West and the Europeans have clearly missed opportunities (some of which were loudly pointed out at the time) to help Russia. Russia should have been offered the hand of friendship, not to mention NATO membership and in my opinion some sort of most favoured nation trading status within the European Union. There should have been real support (financial and otherwise) for the transition of Russia's economy and institutions towards a fully fledged democracy. Had this been more forthcoming than not only might modern Russia have been different and more democratic but the European Union might well have been different as well.
As for Russia, the ball is firmly in their court, perhaps the children and grandchildren of the people who courageously stood up to the attempted coup in August 1991 will finally reap the full benefits of a fully democratic and free Russia rather than the fragile democracy that exists now. Some terribly grim things were done in the name of Soviet state Socialism, but, not everything the Soviet Union did (as least domestically) was bad. That said, a rose tinted nostalgia for the past won't butter bread or fill your petrol tank or keep a roof over your head.
And here in the West, as well as in Russia, there are those who have also not adjusted to our new common realities, the fall of the wall and the demise of the Soviet Union should have led to the loss of those tired old (and now pointless) labels of 'left' and 'right.' The new game is called globalisation, and people, communities and nations are mere commodities and as it's largely bereft of ideology - it's now about how we deal with the worst of its social and economic consequences.
 |
| Boris Yeltsin outside the White House |
Twenty years down the line, and with the benefit of hindsight it's pretty clear the botched coup merely speeded up the demise of the Soviet Union. With the people on the streets (the defiance was not just confined to Moscow for example 10,000 protesters flooded the square in provincial Sverdlovsk and there were no arrests) the forces of reaction stalled, blinked, drank and crumbled.
Soviet communism was finally exposed live on TV as the repressive force it was, it ended up discredited in the eyes of the Russian people and proved itself unequal to their hopes and aspirations. A one party tyranny based state that emerged from the chaos of the first world war, two revolutions and a bloody civil war some 74 years previously, quietly rolled over and died as Russia was reborn.
 |
| People and Tank in Moscow |
By the time Gorbachev came back to Moscow he was literally coming back to another country. Boris Yeltsin, was now running the show and the state, Russia was back. I remember the live defining theatrical moment, when Yeltsin forced the then Soviet leader to sign the all-powerful Soviet Communist Party out of existence. The reality was that after more than 70 years the Soviet Union was rapidly dissolving day by day and moment by moment, as the various republics declared their independence and their independence was recognised by Russia and the Western powers.
What followed was a high speed and shockingly chaotic transfer of the old institutions of Soviet state to the new Russian state. On the 8th December, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus renounced the (1922) treaty that had created the Russian dominated Soviet Union. On the 25th December (our Christmas Day), Gorbachev duly resigned in a tv broadcast and accepted the dissolution of the world's second superpower, the Russian flag was duly raised over the Kremlin and the party was well and truly over, but, one mother of a hangover was to follow.
Sadly the fledgling Russian democracy was in no condition to deliver on peoples hopes and aspirations, the democrats found themselves rapidly pushed out of the corridors of power and the era of the oligarchs began. The much trumpeted privatisations brought in millions for the privatisers (and some of the former state officials) but brought in a flood tide of chaos, corruption, poverty and misery to millions of ordinary Russians. All of this may go some way to explaining why there so much disillusionment and cynicism in modern Russia today.
The Russia that emerged was quite different from its new independent neighbours, and not just in scale, but in historical experience and character. The country had suffered waves of emigration (some voluntary, some not) with the departure of aristocracy, the business and educated and professional classes. Stalin's terror, the great patriotic war and the inertia of the late 1960's, the 1970's and the 1980's all left their mark in memory, attitude and expectation.
If we are being honest, some of this is our fault, certainly in the early 1990's there was a marked failure in the West, to accept that Russia, was not the old Soviet Union. The West never reached out to Russia either economically or politically. Russia by way of comparison with the largess that was handed our to the old Soviet-bloc countries waiting to join the EU, did rather badly. The Western leaders desire to create 'a new Europe' oddly enough did not stretch to include Russia.
Instead of support and help to build democratic intuitions all Russia got was an ill-thought out hurried crash course in free-market economics not to mention a degree of criticism over Russia's failure to meet Western democratic and judicial standards. It was consummate arrogance on the part of the West to think that the western European trans-atlantic model of 'free market' capitalism would work in Russia, one size does not (and did not) fit all. When the Russian democratic system belatedly began to throw up popular choices that the West did not like then help to tweak the election results in favour of Boris Yeltsin was duly forthcoming.
The combination of institutional corruption, selective intolerance of democratic opponents, extra judicial murder of journalists (and critics of the regime), suspicious deaths in custody and occasional bouts of hyper inflation (which eradicated ordinary peoples savings), border wars and terrorism have left modern Russia and different and a depressing pseudo democratic state. Throw in the activities of the pro Kremlin media moguls (who would make News International look like a bunch of cack handed woolly headed amateurs) buying up or closing down opposition news organisations and is it any wonder that democracy in Russia stalled.
Perhaps if the Soviet Union had lingered longer and gone through more of transition to representative democracy then things might have been different. Russia was half-way through its own revolution when the Soviet Union collapsed around it. Things were different in middle and eastern Europe where the Baltic peoples and the East and Central Europeans literally overthrew the old system and started things with a reasonably clean slate. Poor old Russia was left to muddle through and to attempt to sort out several things at once.
The welcome exposure of communist ideology as the empty shell it was helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it's important to remember that the overthrow of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union were two different but intertwined processes. The events of 1990 and 1991 were as as much a clash between Russia and the Soviet Union, as visibly portrayed by the personal struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev, as they were any meaningful argument about any form of ideology.
In middle and eastern Europe the former Soviet client states were able to start anew, with new institutions and (in most countries) new people, Russia's revolution focused on a recovery and restoration of it's lost sovereignty. Russia has, amongst other things been over the last twenty years recovering its history, borders, statehood, and its historic mission. All this took place while Russia was also attempting to find its place in the new neighbourhood (near abroad) and the new world (far abroad).
With Russian statehood came a wave of re-branding and re-imaging as former Soviet institutions emerged as all Russian institutions. The old KGB for example was reborn and re-branded as the Federal Security Service (FSB), the same process took place in a host of other organisations. Yet old Soviet habits died hard and old Soviet mind sets lingered on, if not clawed back some of their previous prestige and power. Despite everything that has happened Russia has not turned into Upper Volta with nuclear weapons and no gunboats have appeared on the Volga as was predicted by some commentators in the 1990's.
Russia has not gone backwards, things are different both significantly and more subtly, modern Russia is not the former Soviet Union, we are all somewhere different. Any half baked partial restoration of the Soviet past will not work as every year that passes a new generation who have no memory of the CCCP comes through the school system. Putin, despite his faults and the work of the Kremlin spin doctors, is no Stalin, no Yeltsin, yet may be more of a Brezhnev. Personally he is one of the generation that crosses the great divide - the latter years of Soviet Union, the turbulent years of the economic and political transition from 1989 to 1992, and the free market chaos of the mid-1990s.
 |
| Prime Minister Putin |
The West and the Europeans have clearly missed opportunities (some of which were loudly pointed out at the time) to help Russia. Russia should have been offered the hand of friendship, not to mention NATO membership and in my opinion some sort of most favoured nation trading status within the European Union. There should have been real support (financial and otherwise) for the transition of Russia's economy and institutions towards a fully fledged democracy. Had this been more forthcoming than not only might modern Russia have been different and more democratic but the European Union might well have been different as well.
As for Russia, the ball is firmly in their court, perhaps the children and grandchildren of the people who courageously stood up to the attempted coup in August 1991 will finally reap the full benefits of a fully democratic and free Russia rather than the fragile democracy that exists now. Some terribly grim things were done in the name of Soviet state Socialism, but, not everything the Soviet Union did (as least domestically) was bad. That said, a rose tinted nostalgia for the past won't butter bread or fill your petrol tank or keep a roof over your head.
And here in the West, as well as in Russia, there are those who have also not adjusted to our new common realities, the fall of the wall and the demise of the Soviet Union should have led to the loss of those tired old (and now pointless) labels of 'left' and 'right.' The new game is called globalisation, and people, communities and nations are mere commodities and as it's largely bereft of ideology - it's now about how we deal with the worst of its social and economic consequences.
Sunday, 22 May 2011
SAT IN THE DARK?
Human society, has never been so energy dependent throughout all of human history as is it is now on energy. Electricity in one from or another helps to make our urban (and not so urban) communities run, think how many labour saving devices we have in our homes, or rather think what we have that's not electrically driven. Electricity helps to make a more equal society a distinct possibility, otherwise we are literally sat in the dark. Once in the dark, there is a risk that notions of fairness and quality go out the window, taking us somewhere quite unpleasant.
Our domestic (and business) energy prices can go up and down in the short-term, yet the long term trend is always (at least for hydro-carbons) going to be upwards, this is something that is unavoidable due to increasing demands for more energy, a growing population and the relative short term limit to the earth's hydro carbon fuel reserves. It's important to recall that in the 1950's people were actually told that in the future by the end of the 20th century energy would be too cheap to meter...oops!
In hindsight perhaps this was before so complicit idiots (in this case a Conservative Government) decided to purse a headlong dash to gas in the 1980’s and to throw our energy resources to this wolves, sorry the free market. In Norway, being no doubt of slightly sounder mind, they chose to sell their gas overseas (to the UK) and to pocket the profits, whilst massively investing in sustainable renewable energy sources (in Norway) which gives the Norwegians control of their own secure energy supplies.
In the UK, upon privatisation, there were 22 electricity companies and 19 gas companies, now we have six. Energy planning has by and large been left in the hands of the private sector, who have been far too focused on squeezing profits out of us to give any thoughts to the future. While other countries attempted to protect themselves against external shocks to their energy needs; the UK’s market driven approach has been proven to be entirely inadequate. France can store 122 days of gas and Germany 99. Yet the UK had as of April 2009 a gas storage capacity which would last only 15 days; the New Labour Government took almost a decade to recognise the need to increase storage capacity.
One direct consequence of this was that the UK has to sell gas during the summer because they could not store it, leaving UK energy suppliers scrambling to purchase gas again when it is needed in the winter. Massive investment in gas storage facilities to hold gas imported from Qatar has taken place, but, with the best will in the world, that gas supply could hardly be described as secure as it sits in one of the more volatile and unstable regions of the planet. David Cameron can sell all the stun guns, cattle prods and baton rounds he likes to some of the most repressive regimes on the planet, but, over longer term he is not backing a winner (as recent events in the Middle East with the Arab spring clearly show).
Anyone with slightly more than half a brain (even the Con Dems) should actually be capable of plot this trend and be able to note the medium and long-term consequences of being dependent upon energy resources that you don't actually control and that are running out. Over reliance on an an increasingly self interested private sector, who's behaviour has been repeatedly flagged up as cartel like, has not helped to safely plan the energy future of these islands.
Self interest has been compounded by a real failure in basic strategic energy planning and made worse by the last New Labour government and the current Con Dem Government's perverse decision to half-heartedly look at developing diverse reliable alternative energy sources, whilst doing its best to try and hide a whopping great subsidy for the much favoured (at least by the UK Government) Nuclear industry.
Being reliant on that nice Mr Putin's for our energy supplies is not the brightest of ideas, especially as having Russia's hand on our gas supplies can be a tad risky - just ask the Ukraine. Over the longer term, Russia will have potentially declining cash reserves and an economy that is heavily reliant on its trade in gas for export, as Europe grows more dependent on Russian gas then the risk of artificial shortages as a consequence of Mr Putin's (our his successors) geopolitical games will be something all of us in Europe can all do without.
In Scotland, the SNP government is actively driving Scottish energy policy, something that will benefit the Scottish people. Energy consultants and developers are busy mapping specific locations where water that flows down steep enough slopes and ravines to allow it to generate an increasingly precious resource: energy.The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park is actively supporting and encouraging the development of hydro power schemes within the park's boundaries and local communities are also planning to build their own local schemes (something that will deliver sustainable cheap energy and other financial benefits as well).
One of the reasons why the hydro rush will work in Scotland (and could work here in Wales) and should deliver long term sustainable benefits is the new feed-in tariff that came in 2010. The subsidy for producing green energy has been increased and it makes schemes more viable, which when combined with a progressive Government that is actively driving the growth of sustainable non oil and gas and non nuclear dependent energy supplies'- means that plans to develop sustainable renewable energy supplies are proceeding apace.
The question is will Labour in Wales step up to the plate and grasp the opportunity to drive and develop energy policy in Wales?
Our domestic (and business) energy prices can go up and down in the short-term, yet the long term trend is always (at least for hydro-carbons) going to be upwards, this is something that is unavoidable due to increasing demands for more energy, a growing population and the relative short term limit to the earth's hydro carbon fuel reserves. It's important to recall that in the 1950's people were actually told that in the future by the end of the 20th century energy would be too cheap to meter...oops!
In hindsight perhaps this was before so complicit idiots (in this case a Conservative Government) decided to purse a headlong dash to gas in the 1980’s and to throw our energy resources to this wolves, sorry the free market. In Norway, being no doubt of slightly sounder mind, they chose to sell their gas overseas (to the UK) and to pocket the profits, whilst massively investing in sustainable renewable energy sources (in Norway) which gives the Norwegians control of their own secure energy supplies.
In the UK, upon privatisation, there were 22 electricity companies and 19 gas companies, now we have six. Energy planning has by and large been left in the hands of the private sector, who have been far too focused on squeezing profits out of us to give any thoughts to the future. While other countries attempted to protect themselves against external shocks to their energy needs; the UK’s market driven approach has been proven to be entirely inadequate. France can store 122 days of gas and Germany 99. Yet the UK had as of April 2009 a gas storage capacity which would last only 15 days; the New Labour Government took almost a decade to recognise the need to increase storage capacity.
One direct consequence of this was that the UK has to sell gas during the summer because they could not store it, leaving UK energy suppliers scrambling to purchase gas again when it is needed in the winter. Massive investment in gas storage facilities to hold gas imported from Qatar has taken place, but, with the best will in the world, that gas supply could hardly be described as secure as it sits in one of the more volatile and unstable regions of the planet. David Cameron can sell all the stun guns, cattle prods and baton rounds he likes to some of the most repressive regimes on the planet, but, over longer term he is not backing a winner (as recent events in the Middle East with the Arab spring clearly show).
Anyone with slightly more than half a brain (even the Con Dems) should actually be capable of plot this trend and be able to note the medium and long-term consequences of being dependent upon energy resources that you don't actually control and that are running out. Over reliance on an an increasingly self interested private sector, who's behaviour has been repeatedly flagged up as cartel like, has not helped to safely plan the energy future of these islands.
Self interest has been compounded by a real failure in basic strategic energy planning and made worse by the last New Labour government and the current Con Dem Government's perverse decision to half-heartedly look at developing diverse reliable alternative energy sources, whilst doing its best to try and hide a whopping great subsidy for the much favoured (at least by the UK Government) Nuclear industry.
Being reliant on that nice Mr Putin's for our energy supplies is not the brightest of ideas, especially as having Russia's hand on our gas supplies can be a tad risky - just ask the Ukraine. Over the longer term, Russia will have potentially declining cash reserves and an economy that is heavily reliant on its trade in gas for export, as Europe grows more dependent on Russian gas then the risk of artificial shortages as a consequence of Mr Putin's (our his successors) geopolitical games will be something all of us in Europe can all do without.
In Scotland, the SNP government is actively driving Scottish energy policy, something that will benefit the Scottish people. Energy consultants and developers are busy mapping specific locations where water that flows down steep enough slopes and ravines to allow it to generate an increasingly precious resource: energy.The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park is actively supporting and encouraging the development of hydro power schemes within the park's boundaries and local communities are also planning to build their own local schemes (something that will deliver sustainable cheap energy and other financial benefits as well).
One of the reasons why the hydro rush will work in Scotland (and could work here in Wales) and should deliver long term sustainable benefits is the new feed-in tariff that came in 2010. The subsidy for producing green energy has been increased and it makes schemes more viable, which when combined with a progressive Government that is actively driving the growth of sustainable non oil and gas and non nuclear dependent energy supplies'- means that plans to develop sustainable renewable energy supplies are proceeding apace.
The question is will Labour in Wales step up to the plate and grasp the opportunity to drive and develop energy policy in Wales?
Friday, 23 April 2010
LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD
Adam Price makes a fair point when he observes that while the Cold War is long past and that the world has changed, he notes that the mindset and attitudes of the London based parties are still focused on the dynamics of the the old Cold War. The conflict that the UK is currently involved in is a world away from anything that could have been envisaged during the old Cold War days even by the coldest of cold warriors. Putin's Russia and Obama's America sat down recently, with a host of other states to discuss nuclear weapons and other nuclear issues and end up with a significant reduction in nuclear warheads - what do we get from the three London based Parties - silence!
Now the UK government's 2006 White Paper (on Trident) stated that building replacements would cost between £15bn and £20bn and that would (using 2006 prices) include between £11bn and £14bn for the four boats, and between £2bn and £3bn for the refurbishment of the replacement warheads, not to mention an additional £2bn to £3bn for infrastructure and upgrades over the life of the submarines.Oddly enough these figures make no reference to running costs, maintenance, refits of the submarines, or any additional costs in the missile programme from 2030, when the Trident D5 missile will cease to be in service.
It's worth noting that not everyone agrees with these figures, certainly Greenpeace don't, they have estimated that the full cost of replacing and running the Trident system on a like-for-like basis (as New Labour and the Conservatives have promised to do), will be between £80bn and £100bn in total. Which works out at around £2bn pounds per year over the weapon system's expected lifespan of 40 years, in real terms this is estimated to be some 5% of the annual defence budget, which currently rolls in at approximately £38bn per year.
Replacing Trident with a like for like system, makes little military sense and no economic sense at all. To do this when the old style confrontation that was the Cold War ended some twenty years ago makes little sense. We in the West, face wholly different security threats which are a world away from the old Cold War. It's about time the the UK government caught up with the modern world and stopped living in the past and cut its budget and its cloth to match current realities.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
GOOD OLD UNCLE VLAD...
With the Russian Orthodox New Year rapidly approaching and with temperatures dropping; Vladimir Putin will no doubt pick his moment to revive the long standing feud with Ukraine over gas prices. This time last year the Russians decided to reduce gas exported into Ukraine, through which 80 per cent of Russian gas exports to the EU happen to flow, something which highlighted the real dangers of relying on imported energy.
So what you may say does this have to do with us? A lot is the answer, while Russia may have declining cash reserves over the long term and an economy that is heavily reliant on its trade in oil and gas – the risk of shortages as a consequence of the Kremlin and Mr Putin's geopolitical games is something we in the West can truly all do without. We are in the middle of a cold snap at the moment, and gas is the fuel that is used to heat about two thirds of Britain's homes.
On Monday (4th January 2009) the National Grid issued a warning (a Gas Balancing Alert) to energy providers that demand for gas is threatening to outstrip gas supply. This warning (the last one was sent out in March 2006) follows a 30 percent rise on normal seasonal demand as the cold snap continues. Natural Gas prices rose to their highest level in 10 months (reaching 45 p per therm) – this triggered the import of extra gas from Belgium and Norway via the natural gas (liquefied) importation terminal in Kent.
So what you may ask? Well - quite alot including the prospect of higher energy bills (because we the consumer pay for the shortsighted self interest of the energy companies), higher profits for the energy cartel (sorry companies) and more tax for Gordon Brown’s government. Now while other countries insured themselves against external shocks to their energy needs; successive UK Government’s left it to the market to sort out – so what did the energy companies do, they chased quick short term profits at our expense.
The UK’s market driven approach has been entirely inadequate. One year ago as of January 2009, France could store 122 days of gas and Germany 99 and the UK had storage capacity which would only 15 days. In the 1980’s and 1990’s developing a long term energy strategy or making sensible long term decisions in relation to energy supply was never an option for the Tories during their last tenure on government.
Likewise, the New Labour Government took the best part of a decade to recognise the need to increase storage capacity. The consequence is that UK has to sell gas during the summer because we cannot store it but UK energy suppliers often struggle to purchase gas again when it is needed during a particularly prolonged cold spell as we have at the moment.
The complicit insanity of the Conservative’s headlong shortsighted dash to gas in the 1980’s has been compounded by a real failure in basic strategic energy planning and made worse by the Government's perverse decision to half-heartily look at developing diverse reliable alternative energy sources. This New Labour Government has ignored repeated warnings that it was setting the UK on a path towards higher prices and blackouts.
As I have said before (and will say again) that as a matter of urgency the Westminster Government, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly should work with the Irish Government to make these islands entirely self sufficient via renewable non market driven energy resources.
If we develop a flexible self-sufficient energy development strategy within these isles that encourages decentralised micro generation schemes and by actually implementing it this could create jobs, useful skills and help to bootstrap the economy out of the developing recession as well as helping consumers.
So what you may say does this have to do with us? A lot is the answer, while Russia may have declining cash reserves over the long term and an economy that is heavily reliant on its trade in oil and gas – the risk of shortages as a consequence of the Kremlin and Mr Putin's geopolitical games is something we in the West can truly all do without. We are in the middle of a cold snap at the moment, and gas is the fuel that is used to heat about two thirds of Britain's homes.
On Monday (4th January 2009) the National Grid issued a warning (a Gas Balancing Alert) to energy providers that demand for gas is threatening to outstrip gas supply. This warning (the last one was sent out in March 2006) follows a 30 percent rise on normal seasonal demand as the cold snap continues. Natural Gas prices rose to their highest level in 10 months (reaching 45 p per therm) – this triggered the import of extra gas from Belgium and Norway via the natural gas (liquefied) importation terminal in Kent.
So what you may ask? Well - quite alot including the prospect of higher energy bills (because we the consumer pay for the shortsighted self interest of the energy companies), higher profits for the energy cartel (sorry companies) and more tax for Gordon Brown’s government. Now while other countries insured themselves against external shocks to their energy needs; successive UK Government’s left it to the market to sort out – so what did the energy companies do, they chased quick short term profits at our expense.
The UK’s market driven approach has been entirely inadequate. One year ago as of January 2009, France could store 122 days of gas and Germany 99 and the UK had storage capacity which would only 15 days. In the 1980’s and 1990’s developing a long term energy strategy or making sensible long term decisions in relation to energy supply was never an option for the Tories during their last tenure on government.
Likewise, the New Labour Government took the best part of a decade to recognise the need to increase storage capacity. The consequence is that UK has to sell gas during the summer because we cannot store it but UK energy suppliers often struggle to purchase gas again when it is needed during a particularly prolonged cold spell as we have at the moment.
The complicit insanity of the Conservative’s headlong shortsighted dash to gas in the 1980’s has been compounded by a real failure in basic strategic energy planning and made worse by the Government's perverse decision to half-heartily look at developing diverse reliable alternative energy sources. This New Labour Government has ignored repeated warnings that it was setting the UK on a path towards higher prices and blackouts.
As I have said before (and will say again) that as a matter of urgency the Westminster Government, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly should work with the Irish Government to make these islands entirely self sufficient via renewable non market driven energy resources.
If we develop a flexible self-sufficient energy development strategy within these isles that encourages decentralised micro generation schemes and by actually implementing it this could create jobs, useful skills and help to bootstrap the economy out of the developing recession as well as helping consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)