I read recently that Mark Carney has explained to his fellow Canadians that whilst he wishes to build up the Green energy sector to completely replace fossil fuels, the sector is not yet ready and therefore Canada must continue to utilise fossil fuels in order to fund the expansion of greener energy and meet the shortfall.
As a strategy it works to get to the end point.
If AB could embrace this strategy and explain it as such. Could that keep everyone happy I wonder?
Surely the proposal to cap political donations could be amended to take account of the fact that trades union donations comprise thousands of individual donations--unlike say a £5m donation from a single cryptobillionaire.
And surely short term tax revenue and jobs from drilling the last 2.9m barrels of oil equivalent from the declining North Sea oil basin should be set against revenue and jobs from much longer term investment in clean energy in Scotland.
Windy Scotland is a Mecca for windfarms to create jobs, and a huge number of proposed hyperscale AI datacentres--because of proximity to clean energy and water for cooling. Though public resistance to datacentres is mounting, & after construction they support relatively few jobs.
It seems absurd to imagine Burnham willing to squander so much voter goodwill, and UK credibility on climate issues--especially following agreements with both France and Spain signed by Ed Miliband as new Foreign Secretary.
The other difference between Canada and UK is that Canada still has a huge amount of resources buried in the ground (where they should stay, but that's a another story) - Britain has none, unless we want to start digging up coal again.
But even that would have to be done at a loss run by a nationalised entity, as the diesel and oil required to get the coal out of the ground is now restricted and itself getting more expensive to get out of the ground.
As a planet on average we now use 1 gallon of oil to get 6 gallons of oil out of the ground, except fracking which coasts nearly 1 for 1. In 1912 that ratio was 120 to 1; In 1940 we got 50 gallons for every 1 gallon of oil used; in the 1973 oil crisis that ratio became 25 to 1; in 2000 it became 20:1. In 2010 it was 10:1. {These ratios, called EROEI, energy return on energy invested) are averages - individual fields have higher and lower ratios}
We've dug up all the easy to get oil, and are now drilling miles beneath deep oceans to get the difficult to find oil.
We are getting to the point where that ratio is dropping to 1 gallon of oil to get 3 gallons of oil within the next decade.
None of the energy arguments stack up. Even Carney's.
The debate shouldn't be about Rosebank, or wind farms and solar panels. It should be about how we start using less energy as a nation, equitably, with a year on year decline until carbon emissions stabilise.
But no one is going to stand in office to offer that, and the masses seduced by consumerism and nationalism aren't going to vote for that.
So nature will enforce it on us anyway, as we are now seeing.
I thought that Canada's fossil fuel supplies were mainly tied up in the Alberta tar sands. Am I wrong in thinking this? The process used to extract the oil is one of the dirtiest and most polluting.
Yes the tar sand are despicable from a ecological point of view, and even from an energetic point of view have low EROEI.
But Canada also exports LNG, uranium for the nuclear industry, and some refined oil products. With carbon emissions of 05-1 billion tons CO2 per annum, Canada is one of the biggest contributors to burning down its own forests (!). To put that in perspective, the world releases ~40 billion tons CO2 per annum.
Another way of looking at it - Canada generates 1.5% of world's CO2 emissions with 0.5% of the world's population.
Domestic energy use includes a lot of hydro, as well as nuclear, a bit of coal, and the usual tiny % from renewables.
As is to be expected, you'll find quite a variation in figures. From an ecological perspective, which is the only one that really matters, it's all bad.
Huge difference between Canada and a depleted North Sea. Anything extracted in the North Sea is sold on the open market by the company who extracts. We don’t benefit. Equinor, who own the licence for Rosebank, suggests the business case barely stacks up for oil extraction. Shell own Jackdaw and suggest only 3% of gas (not 6% that some like to band about) could be brought onshore. BP are selling up and pulling out of the North Sea. We neither have refining capability or gas storage facilities. This Labour Gov was short sighted in letting Grangemouth close. It refined North Sea crude oil into petrol, diesel, and jet fuel. North Sea crude is high in sulphur and needs specialised refining. Frankly, Burnham can rot in hell before he gets my vote.
GMB and other such unions are driven by self-presevation, power and influence, rather than what is best for the worker.
Collecting my subs each month for years, paying their top brass 10x my annual salary, spending money on shite like football kit sponsorship, and then when I needed them just shrugging their shoulders.
It's no surprise to me to read what you have written above.
Sam I work offshore on the rigs and am perfectly aware of the impending doom of climate change but the facts remain that the UK has already greatly reduced it emissions and continues to do so. We do not need to prematurely bring to an end our entire oil & Gas industry, with all the energy, jobs and taxes it provides, to satisfy an arbitrary net zero deadline. Geology not politics should dictate when we stop exploiting our offshore reserves and we must manage its decline while using the profits from it to subsidise the modernisation of the grid and the sensible transition to nuclear/renewables future.
Totally agree. Meeting net zero and using oil are not necessarily mutually exclusive and we still need oil for central heating, delivery vehicles, ships, planes, many buses and a fair proportion of trains. The move to electric cars is well underway, and thanks to Chinese manufacturers now as cheap as ICE vehicles were. We have lost thousands of high quality jobs in the oil and gas industry resulting in the Tories winning the recent Aberdeen by election - perhaps Burnham is mindful of that?
Where trades unions act to promote right wing policies, they have always been a massive problem for the Labour Party. They were to blame for many of the excessively sexist & racist policies Labour pursued in the '60s & '70's. It's time both the unions & the party grew up & realised that there are no jobs on a dead planet.
Finally seeing someone talking about this! So frustratingly ignored. I believe this was the source of the CX Mahmood press red herring too. The unions needed to be confident it was not Miliband to give his affiliate nominations for leadership, and the timing of the "leak" was perfect aligned.
While I don't want more drilling- I believe the West of Shetland depth are supposed to have large sources of Untapped oil. Even if it has-the oil wealth will be squandered as it was at the first drillings. Norway managed their wealth wonderfully for their people. The UK squandered theirs.
Thanks Sam - that explains a lot.
I read recently that Mark Carney has explained to his fellow Canadians that whilst he wishes to build up the Green energy sector to completely replace fossil fuels, the sector is not yet ready and therefore Canada must continue to utilise fossil fuels in order to fund the expansion of greener energy and meet the shortfall.
As a strategy it works to get to the end point.
If AB could embrace this strategy and explain it as such. Could that keep everyone happy I wonder?
Surely the proposal to cap political donations could be amended to take account of the fact that trades union donations comprise thousands of individual donations--unlike say a £5m donation from a single cryptobillionaire.
And surely short term tax revenue and jobs from drilling the last 2.9m barrels of oil equivalent from the declining North Sea oil basin should be set against revenue and jobs from much longer term investment in clean energy in Scotland.
Windy Scotland is a Mecca for windfarms to create jobs, and a huge number of proposed hyperscale AI datacentres--because of proximity to clean energy and water for cooling. Though public resistance to datacentres is mounting, & after construction they support relatively few jobs.
It seems absurd to imagine Burnham willing to squander so much voter goodwill, and UK credibility on climate issues--especially following agreements with both France and Spain signed by Ed Miliband as new Foreign Secretary.
The other difference between Canada and UK is that Canada still has a huge amount of resources buried in the ground (where they should stay, but that's a another story) - Britain has none, unless we want to start digging up coal again.
But even that would have to be done at a loss run by a nationalised entity, as the diesel and oil required to get the coal out of the ground is now restricted and itself getting more expensive to get out of the ground.
As a planet on average we now use 1 gallon of oil to get 6 gallons of oil out of the ground, except fracking which coasts nearly 1 for 1. In 1912 that ratio was 120 to 1; In 1940 we got 50 gallons for every 1 gallon of oil used; in the 1973 oil crisis that ratio became 25 to 1; in 2000 it became 20:1. In 2010 it was 10:1. {These ratios, called EROEI, energy return on energy invested) are averages - individual fields have higher and lower ratios}
We've dug up all the easy to get oil, and are now drilling miles beneath deep oceans to get the difficult to find oil.
We are getting to the point where that ratio is dropping to 1 gallon of oil to get 3 gallons of oil within the next decade.
None of the energy arguments stack up. Even Carney's.
The debate shouldn't be about Rosebank, or wind farms and solar panels. It should be about how we start using less energy as a nation, equitably, with a year on year decline until carbon emissions stabilise.
But no one is going to stand in office to offer that, and the masses seduced by consumerism and nationalism aren't going to vote for that.
So nature will enforce it on us anyway, as we are now seeing.
I thought that Canada's fossil fuel supplies were mainly tied up in the Alberta tar sands. Am I wrong in thinking this? The process used to extract the oil is one of the dirtiest and most polluting.
Yes the tar sand are despicable from a ecological point of view, and even from an energetic point of view have low EROEI.
But Canada also exports LNG, uranium for the nuclear industry, and some refined oil products. With carbon emissions of 05-1 billion tons CO2 per annum, Canada is one of the biggest contributors to burning down its own forests (!). To put that in perspective, the world releases ~40 billion tons CO2 per annum.
Another way of looking at it - Canada generates 1.5% of world's CO2 emissions with 0.5% of the world's population.
Domestic energy use includes a lot of hydro, as well as nuclear, a bit of coal, and the usual tiny % from renewables.
As is to be expected, you'll find quite a variation in figures. From an ecological perspective, which is the only one that really matters, it's all bad.
https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/canada
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025
Just curious about who would get your vote and why?
Huge difference between Canada and a depleted North Sea. Anything extracted in the North Sea is sold on the open market by the company who extracts. We don’t benefit. Equinor, who own the licence for Rosebank, suggests the business case barely stacks up for oil extraction. Shell own Jackdaw and suggest only 3% of gas (not 6% that some like to band about) could be brought onshore. BP are selling up and pulling out of the North Sea. We neither have refining capability or gas storage facilities. This Labour Gov was short sighted in letting Grangemouth close. It refined North Sea crude oil into petrol, diesel, and jet fuel. North Sea crude is high in sulphur and needs specialised refining. Frankly, Burnham can rot in hell before he gets my vote.
Useful insight, thanks
GMB and other such unions are driven by self-presevation, power and influence, rather than what is best for the worker.
Collecting my subs each month for years, paying their top brass 10x my annual salary, spending money on shite like football kit sponsorship, and then when I needed them just shrugging their shoulders.
It's no surprise to me to read what you have written above.
Sam I work offshore on the rigs and am perfectly aware of the impending doom of climate change but the facts remain that the UK has already greatly reduced it emissions and continues to do so. We do not need to prematurely bring to an end our entire oil & Gas industry, with all the energy, jobs and taxes it provides, to satisfy an arbitrary net zero deadline. Geology not politics should dictate when we stop exploiting our offshore reserves and we must manage its decline while using the profits from it to subsidise the modernisation of the grid and the sensible transition to nuclear/renewables future.
Totally agree. Meeting net zero and using oil are not necessarily mutually exclusive and we still need oil for central heating, delivery vehicles, ships, planes, many buses and a fair proportion of trains. The move to electric cars is well underway, and thanks to Chinese manufacturers now as cheap as ICE vehicles were. We have lost thousands of high quality jobs in the oil and gas industry resulting in the Tories winning the recent Aberdeen by election - perhaps Burnham is mindful of that?
Excellent suggestion.
Where trades unions act to promote right wing policies, they have always been a massive problem for the Labour Party. They were to blame for many of the excessively sexist & racist policies Labour pursued in the '60s & '70's. It's time both the unions & the party grew up & realised that there are no jobs on a dead planet.
Until he stands up to Israeli influence he won’t get my vote.
Same for me Sue
Finally seeing someone talking about this! So frustratingly ignored. I believe this was the source of the CX Mahmood press red herring too. The unions needed to be confident it was not Miliband to give his affiliate nominations for leadership, and the timing of the "leak" was perfect aligned.
Oh for a political party that isn't in hock to any factional interest. What a pity we don't have one .......
While I don't want more drilling- I believe the West of Shetland depth are supposed to have large sources of Untapped oil. Even if it has-the oil wealth will be squandered as it was at the first drillings. Norway managed their wealth wonderfully for their people. The UK squandered theirs.
Not to mention his stance on Gaza/Israel which is at the forefront of my mind when I'm looking to support a political party.
No mention of Delek