pragmatism and fragmentation

Pic copyright Steve Sainsbury /Bristol Camera

FACEBOOK - GREEN PROGRESSIVES

Just a few weeks to the election - and probably the most intriguing one for decades. The UK is still reeling from the independence vote in Scotland last year. We are also watching with interest the winding up of UKIP, probably the only political party in the world that wants to return a country to a non-existent past. We have a Labour Party that looks down on working people and makes no attempt to understand or represent them, and we have the tories who as always see politics simply as a career choice and a way of networking amongst the self-appointed elite. We have super confident Scottish nationalists on the verge of getting freedom from this dying union with less confident Welsh and Cornish nationalists picking up speed in their wake. We have a far right that has mistakenly hitched a ride on the back of the ridiculous UKIP, bringing them and themselves down in the process. We have the shellshocked Lib Dems wondering what hit them ...

... and then we have the Greens.

We live in confusing times. The country has been in economic shock since 2008 and there's no obvious way out. There is the sterile austerity/not austerity gambit - which as Greens we know is nonsense. There is pandering to 'Britishness' but not the wonderful multicultural and crazy Britishness that we all know and live, but a weird media-based filmic hybrid of the 50s and the 90s, which none of us know or live.

The primacy of myth and magic over reality and science suggests real issues at the heart of the psyche of this country. Why has this happened? I suspect it's closely linked to the economic crisis, which is clearly a harbinger of our future low-growth, no-growth or negative growth declining energy economy. Nostalgia is taking over at the same rate as we are losing our senses ...

... and then we have the Greens.

The Greens are close to a breakthrough, that much is clear, though whether that breakthrough will be in 2015, 2020 or even 2025 is anybody's guess. But even the Greens have their problems, their clinging to nostalgia and a more comfortable if backwards-looking view of Britain. The party is still infested with extreme lefties and marxists who moved away from Labour as the toffs took over, and saw the Green Party (correctly) as a soft touch. Some 'Greens' still see no irony or shame in describing themselves as marxists or even trotskyists. Is there any greater nostalgia? How exactly do these 'Greens' imagine the future of low energy, low resources and localization will sit easily with their dream of the big state, compliant workers, disrespect of the environment and class war (with the middle classes as always being the winners)?

The Greens need to sweep this rubbish under the carpet and start building a REAL Green Party to take power in the coming decades. It needs to appeal across the board, not just to a few middle class academic and soulless lefties. It needs to show those members who run businesses (and there are MANY of those) that the party supports local capitalism and will help businesses establish themselves under the new sustainable paradigm. They need to push the positives of a species that works in cooperation - rather than against - nature. They need to bring joy, light and humour into the whole process. Because, believe it or not, the time for government is not now far off. As Greens we need to become the people that can help run a country, to listen to people and to announce our motto from the rooftops ...

Be kind and have courage!

April Fools!!

FACEBOOK - GREEN PROGRESSIVES

Perhaps April Fools should stick to the first day of the month (or even the first morning) but it seems to be leaking out and embracing the rest of the month.

This morning I heard a garbled report that claimed that 100 million barrels of oil had been found near Gatwick. Think about that - just over a day's worth of oil and it makes the news. But later (on the same programme) that figure had inflated to 150 BILLION barrels. Now that is a tidier sum ... but it's about as realistic as when people claim the skies are being sprayed with 'chemtrails' or that we are about to have the worst winter in 300 years (thanks Nathan Rao - you are a demigod!)

So how did that figure inflate, and what exactly does it mean? Well we start with that original quote, 100 million barrels. It seems that's what an exploration company (which of course has no interest in bigging this up LOL!) claims there is in one square mile underground. Mmmm. Really? Well the chances are that after a proper pore over maps and calling in experts with their 3D tech they drilled that well in precisely the area that oil was most likely to occur. And it seems they've found some. But what exactly does that mean? It may well mean that there is, in the pores of the rock underground, approximately 100 million barrels of oil. But that doesn't mean for one minute that 100 million  barrels of oil will come spurting out of the ground! Much of it may be unrecoverable, it may need HUGE amounts of energy put in to get it out (leaving a much lower NEW amount available). It may need refining facilities that don't yet exist - and may well not attract investment anyway. It needs to be transported to where it can be refined  even using rail (which it probably will) it will still use more energy to move it, reducing the net amount even more. Even the best sums suggest there will only be around 5 million to 10 million NET barrels available (about one and a half to three hours' worth!) 

Now that best figure has been inflated on the assumption that every part of this field will be equally productive. This is extremely unlikely. An oil field isn't some great undersea lake of oil, just waiting to gush out as soon as we puncture the ground! Oil exists in pores in the bedrock and there are often fractures or blockages that can make huge differences to the amount of recoverable oil. I would probably conservatively estimate that in reality this field will have perhaps 300 million to 500 million  barrels of recoverable NET oil. Not to be sniffed at, but at 4 to 6 days of worldwide oil use really a tiddler. Good for cashflow, not very good for our economy as it may well slow down investment in sustainable energy and, as always - and especially if fracking is needed at least in part - terrible for the climate.

And the consensus is that we need to leave 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change. Even Mark Carney, the Guvnor of the Bank of England, hardly  a mung munching, sandal wearing, tree hugging Greenie, has said as much. Why are we bothering with this rubbish when it's clear there's no future for fossil fuels?

But probably the biggest clincher of all will be the Daily Mail and Express reading NIMBY locals, who will fight like mad (missing the irony that they are immersed in fossil fuel consumption heaven) to stop this horrid industry on their land. Perhaps, just for once, they will be on the right side?