If Ireland does indeed get bullied into accepting the Lisbon treaty...

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

global warming is not the job of Lisbon's to tackle last i checked?


but the common energy policy could lead to more renewable energy use and building more interconnectors, which is all well and good but wont be cheap in short term


i dont know whether it was this thread or earlier on but someone brought up an argument in favour of Lisbon by pointing out the pressure being applied to decommission the the Chernobyl type reactors in easter Europe

thats another selling point related to Lisbon and EU

im quite pro nuclear and renewable power, but i dont like the idea of these old soviet reactors being in use as they have very questionable standards compared to modern western reactors

You make some good points, but, climate change (warming/cooling) is so important now that if, as you say: "global warming is not the job of Lisbon's to tackle last i checked?" then we we need to ask why is it not?

I fully agree with you that we need to emphasis alternative energy production, but that should not cause us to deemphasis our overwhelming dependence on (cheap) oil, and the important (if somewhat unpleasant) question of how a consolidated Europe can secure a sufficient portion of the majority of oil left in the world, i.e. will the Lisbon Treaty help Europe to access the deposits of oil in Saudi Arabia/Iraq/etc.?

SkepticOne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but the common energy policy could lead to more renewable energy use and building more interconnectors, which is all well and good but wont be cheap in short term

The tendency with centralised decision making is to cut out duplication.

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So it makes fighting climate change a goal of the EU.

thanks didnt see that, i heard people mention but wasnt sure myself

worldrepublic wrote: »

You make some good points, but, climate change (warming/cooling) is so important now that if, as you say: "global warming is not the job of Lisbon's to tackle last i checked?" then we we need to ask why is it not?

I fully agree with you that we need to emphasis alternative energy production, but that should not cause us to deemphasis our overwhelming dependence on (cheap) oil, and the important (if somewhat unpleasant) question of how a consolidated Europe can secure a sufficient portion of the majority of oil left in the world, i.e. will the Lisbon Treaty help Europe to access the deposits of oil in Saudi Arabia/Iraq/etc.?

From what I gather its not about "securing" as that may imply military adventures but about "negotiating as one" when it comes to getting energy contracts at lower costs, instead of being played against each other as happens now

like the old saying goes, a bunch of sticks is harder to break that one

i dont know about middle east energy but as i have supplied figures earlier in this thread a good chunk of EUs oil and gas comes from Russia

SkepticOne wrote: »

The tendency with centralised decision making is to cut out duplication.

duplication of what? the east/west interconnector wont be build till 2012 and there aint one to europe here yet

btw cutting out duplication when it comes to energy is a good thing as it leads to less waste

lets say a country like Ireland needs to keep about 7000MW of capacity available in form of power plants to cope with any peaks , if this country is connected to a larger grid some plants can be closed down, saving money

in fact that is exactly whats happening with ESB closing down plants due to both competition and better connectivity coming on board in form of the interconnector (mind you its only 500MW so thats about size of a medium sized coal plant, or half a moneypoint)

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thanks didnt see that, i heard people mention but wasnt sure myself




From what I gather its not about "securing" as that may imply military adventures but about "negotiating as one" when it comes to getting energy contracts at lower costs, instead of being played against each other as happens now

like the old saying goes, a bunch of sticks is harder to break that one

i dont know about middle east energy but as i have supplied figures earlier in this thread a good chunk of EUs oil and gas comes from Russia



duplication of what? the east/west interconnector wont be build till 2012 and there aint one to europe here yet

btw cutting out duplication when it comes to energy is a good thing as it leads to less waste

lets say a country like Ireland needs to keep about 7000MW of capacity available in form of power plants to cope with any peaks , if this country is connected to a larger grid some plants can be closed down, saving money

in fact that is exactly whats happening with ESB closing down plants due to both competition and better connectivity coming on board in form of the interconnector (mind you its only 500MW so thats about size of a medium sized coal plant, or half a moneypoint)

its not about "securing" as that may imply military adventures but about "negotiating as one"

Of course I agree with this, but in order to "negotiate as one" it is necessary to ensure democracy in those parts of the world that have the bulk of remaining substantial energy reserves. Therefore peace and democratic stability would seem to precede the very possibility of "negotiating as one". I would therefore suggest that what you call "military adventures" could more appropriately be termed "peace-keeping".

SkepticOne

worldrepublic wrote: »

its not about "securing" as that may imply military adventures but about "negotiating as one"

I don't think thats a good thing in the European energy context. Better to have many deals made by many countries between many countries. Yes, there will be duplication of resources, but you end up with a more robust system.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think thats a good thing in the European energy context. Better to have many deals made by many countries between many countries. Yes, there will be duplication of resources, but you end up with a more robust system that costs European countries and suits the energy producers.

FYP...

ei.sdraob

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think thats a good thing in the European energy context. Better to have many deals made by many countries between many countries. Yes, there will be duplication of resources, but you end up with a more robust system.

you end up with a higher cost system as happens now with russia and others playing each country against each other

heres a read for ya
http://www.twq.com/07autumn/docs/07autumn_baran.pdf



and that directly leads to more expensive products and services

Ireland is already one of the highest cost energy wise places in Europe, thats what you get for being small and at an end of a very long pipe

worldrepublic wrote:

Of course I agree with this, but in order to "negotiate as one" it is necessary to ensure democracy in those parts of the world that have the bulk of remaining substantial energy reserves. Therefore peace and democratic stability would seem to precede the very possibility of "negotiating as one". I would therefore suggest that what you call "military adventures" could more appropriately be termed "peace-keeping".

see the paper linked above

Engaging the Caspian
Enshrined as the second of the three pillars of the EU, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) states that the EU should seek to promote democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights within its borders and abroad. Yet, dependence on Russian energy supplies undermines Europe’s efforts to foster the ideals of good governance, market transparency, and democracy both in Russia and in Russia’s neighbors. Although the establishment of these principles in energy suppliers is a worthy goal in its own right, doing so will also create a more stable environment for energy sector development, thereby improving European security. Diversifying oil and gas supplies by constructing pipelines directly from the Caucasus and Central Asia to Europe would not only decrease Russia’s influence on EU countries but would also loosen Moscow’s grip on Europe’s neighbors.

please note that was written in 2007, this time a year ago Russia started a war with a Caucasian neighbor, first thing they bombed were the pipelines

worldrepublic

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think thats a good thing in the European energy context. Better to have many deals made by many countries between many countries. Yes, there will be duplication of resources, but you end up with a more robust system.

This is also a good point, but the possibility of "many deals made by many countries between many countries", as described by you, may also be underpinned by the necessity and over-arching importance of "peace-keeping", and perpetual vigilance, especially given the ever-increasing sophistication of terrorist networks. Unfortunately, the war on terror is and will continue to be part and parcel of the energy crisis.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think thats a good thing in the European energy context. Better to have many deals made by many countries between many countries. Yes, there will be duplication of resources, but you end up with a more robust system.

How would a series of multilateral deals be a "more robust system"? In particular, given that within multilateral deals, countries are far freer to use all the economic clout they have at their disposal, how would it be better for Ireland?

There's a reason why small countries like Ireland prefer to negotiate deals through the EU - it prevents the large countries from using all the clout at their disposal - and there's a reason why large non-EU countries like the US and Russia prefer doing multilateral deals rather than dealing with the EU - because it allows them to use all the clout at their disposal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

How would a series of multilateral deals be a "more robust system"? In particular, given that within multilateral deals, countries are far freer to use all the economic clout they have at their disposal, how would it be better for Ireland?

I think Ireland's interests are best served by having as many sources and transit routes into the country as possible. My worry with high level EU involvement is that it may lead to an overly "planned" system. A lot of the problems the EU has with Russia is due to the fact that so much supply from Russia is via one country. There is not enough redundancy in the system. But centrally planned systems tend to overlook this in favour of cutting costs.

Consider the difference between the internet and the legacy telephone system in most countries. The robustness of the Internet (designed to withstand nuclear attack) is due to the fact that there is little central planning.

If we are talking about the EU specifying general frameworks for gas distribution, then I have no issue. It is when the EU gets involved with network planning, grants for pipelines through certain areas and so forth, then I think there will be problems down the line.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think Ireland's interests are best served by having as many sources and transit routes into the country as possible.

Oh yeah, I see what you're saying, we can use Ireland's massive buying power to play the oil and gas producing countries off each other and beat them down to super low prices, as they crawl over each other to get a slice of that sweet sweet 4 million people pie...

:rolleyes:

SkepticOne

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I see what you're saying,

Obviously not.

ei.sdraob

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think Ireland's interests are best served by having as many sources and transit routes into the country as possible. My worry with high level EU involvement is that it may lead to an overly "planned" system. A lot of the problems the EU has with Russia is due to the fact that so much supply from Russia is via one country. There is not enough redundancy in the system. But centrally planned systems tend to overlook this in favour of cutting costs.

Consider the difference between the internet and the legacy telephone system in most countries. The robustness of the Internet (designed to withstand nuclear attack) is due to the fact that there is little central planning.

If we are talking about the EU specifying general frameworks for gas distribution, then I have no issue. It is when the EU gets involved with network planning, grants for pipelines through certain areas and so forth, then I think there will be problems down the line.

Oh yes lets build a pipeline from here directly to Russia now its my turn to be skeptical!

I wonder how much would this "Skeptic1 peace pipeline" :P cost?

Worlds longest underwater pipeline is ~1000K at a cost of ~1.7billion UK pounds > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langeled_pipeline

this will have to be about 4-5 times that! thru deeper water

Im constantly amazed at some of the "brilliant" ideas that people come up on this forum (and in this thread so far)


I even took liberty on planing the route, tho it still doesnt avoid UK and Norway as taking it outside these territories would put the pipe in very deep water

http://i28.tinypic.com/16k5ks9.jpg

Id laugh if such a pipeline is build but the Russians decide to sell the gas to other EU customers! ha epic fail

edit: damn can anyone embed the image in the post? would have much better impact

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh yes lets build a pipeline from here directly to Russia now its my turn to be skeptical!

I wonder how much would this "Skeptic1 peace pipeline" :P cost?

Worlds longest underwater pipeline is ~1000K at a cost of ~1.7billion UK pounds > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langeled_pipeline

this will have to be about 4-5 times that! thru deeper water

Im constantly amazed at some of the "brilliant" ideas that people come up on this forum (and in this thread so far)


I even took liberty on planing the route, tho it still doesnt avoid UK and Norway as taking it outside these territories would put the pipe in very deep water

http://i28.tinypic.com/16k5ks9.jpg

Id laugh if such a pipeline is build but the Russians decide to sell the gas to other EU customers! ha epic fail

edit: damn can anyone embed the image in the post? would have much better impact

Hi guys!

If you want to embed images you need to have them hosted and get a hot link.
:P:p:o:P:o:p
:cool:

worldrepublic

Scofflaw wrote: »

How would a series of multilateral deals be a "more robust system"? In particular, given that within multilateral deals, countries are far freer to use all the economic clout they have at their disposal, how would it be better for Ireland?

There's a reason why small countries like Ireland prefer to negotiate deals through the EU - it prevents the large countries from using all the clout at their disposal - and there's a reason why large non-EU countries like the US and Russia prefer doing multilateral deals rather than dealing with the EU - because it allows them to use all the clout at their disposal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, times are changing, Obama is now the President, so we don't need to think in terms of "all the clout". The point of transferring power over to the European Union is not about thinking in adversarial terms, but rather to move in the direction of change, and hope....

SkepticOne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh yes lets build a pipeline from here directly to Russia now its my turn to be skeptical!

I wonder how much would this "Skeptic1 peace pipeline" :P cost?

Worlds longest underwater pipeline is ~1000K at a cost of ~1.7billion UK pounds > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langeled_pipeline

this will have to be about 4-5 times that! thru deeper water

Im constantly amazed at some of the "brilliant" ideas that people come up on this forum (and in this thread so far)


I even took liberty on planing the route, tho it still doesnt avoid UK and Norway as taking it outside these territories would put the pipe in very deep water

http://i28.tinypic.com/16k5ks9.jpg

Id laugh if such a pipeline is build but the Russians decide to sell the gas to other EU customers! ha epic fail

edit: damn can anyone embed the image in the post? would have much better impact

I know you are aware that is not what I'm suggesting.

worldrepublic

SkepticOne wrote: »

I know you are aware that is not what I'm suggesting.

ei.sdraob, you don't seem to understand SkepticOne's argument. Please go back and read it as you are not helping.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

Well, times are changing, Obama is now the President, so we don't need to think in terms of "all the clout". The point of transferring power over to the European Union is not about thinking in adversarial terms, but rather to move in the direction of change, and hope....

As much as I like Obama I don't believe for a second he honestly cares about the EU or Ireland. Number 1 priority is the US, which is why he wants the US companies taxed on the EU profits to make them go back home and make US jobs for US citizens. Yes having Europe friendly with America is good for him and business but really he is looking out for number 1 and why wouldn't he? Everyone does it. Look at Ireland. They are doing it right now, the people feel their 'sovereignty' is being threatened and they are up in arms.

And why shouldn't we think in terms of all the clout? Russia invaded Georgia last year, turned off the gas pipes in the winter to Eastern European countries and do damn well what they please. North Korea are testing nuclear missles on a fairly regular basis. Everyone is flexing their muscles in any which way they can to show they are big and strong and aren't afraid of anyone.

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

As much as I like Obama I don't believe for a second he honestly cares about the EU or Ireland. Number 1 priority is the US, which is why he wants the US companies taxed on the EU profits to make them go back home and make US jobs for US citizens. Yes having Europe friendly with America is good for him and business but really he is looking out for number 1 and why wouldn't he? Everyone does it. Look at Ireland. They are doing it right now, the people feel their 'sovereignty' is being threatened and they are up in arms.

And why shouldn't we think in terms of all the clout? Russia invaded Georgia last year, turned off the gas pipes in the winter to Eastern European countries and do damn well what they please. North Korea are testing nuclear missles on a fairly regular basis. Everyone is flexing their muscles in any which way they can to show they are big and strong and aren't afraid of anyone.

Well, on a point of fairness, Georgia was a sting operation -the Russians were not to blame.

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

Well, on a point of fairness, Georgia was a sting operation -the Russians were not to blame.

No they were just testing that their tanks still work :rolleyes: a stroll in the park

and they just happen to target first the fuel pipeline from the Caspian that was build so to avoid them

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

No they were just testing that their tanks still work :rolleyes: a stroll in the park

and they just happen to target first the fuel pipeline from the Caspian that was build so to avoid them

'Russia Today', the news service said that "Al qaeda" had infiltrated Georgia, and on this basis the Russians were justified. Various groups, whether Russia, or the USA, or Europe, must sometimes take an assertive course of action. Such actions cannot be questioned given the escalating war on terror, and no one can deny how sophisticated and well financed these terrorists are.

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

'Russia Today', the news service said that "Al qaeda" had infiltrated Georgia, and on this basis the Russians were justified. Various groups, whether Russia, or the USA, or Europe, must sometimes take an assertive course of action. Such actions cannot be questioned given the escalating war on terror, and no one can deny how sophisticated and well financed these terrorists are.

Do you honestly believe what you have just typed yourself? :rolleyes:



here some reading for you > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today

Western state and commercial media claim that RT has close ties with the Russian state authorities and a few years after the channel started broadcasting, for being a "cheerleader" of the Kremlin, applying positive spin to reports about governmental institutions, refraining from criticizing Prime Minister and former Russian president Vladimir Putin or the government, and deliberately and incessantly engaging in US/NATO/EU-bashing through "interviews" in which only Russian ultra-nationalists or highly critical, anti-western "experts" are interviewed--without any probing questions or challenges by the RT reporters, and without even bothering to hear opposing points of view. A CBS News story contains allegations that RT is "a continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services". Western commercial media, including The New York Times, routinely call it "state-run".

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Do you honestly believe what you have just typed yourself? :rolleyes:



here some reading for you > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today

Just about any news service can be critizised, by being influenced by advertisers or corporate owners, for example. The overall crucial point here is that we must all band together to fight the war on Terror. The Terrorists have managed to attack major European centers (London, Madrid...) and even New York and the Pentagon. Only extremely sophisticated, high-technology, well-financed Terrorists could do all of this. Terrorism is a global problem. We hear about it through all major news services all the time. Lou Dobbs, on CNN I think, has also stated that Al qaeda have infiltrated most of Eastern Europe. Europe must unite to form a "peace-keeping" core. Political stability is a prerequisite with respect to economic growth.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

Just about any news service can be critizised, by being influenced by advertisers or corporate owners, for example. The overall crucial point here is that we must all band together to fight the war on Terror. The Terrorists have managed to attack major European centers (London, Madrid...) and even New York and the Pentagon. Only extremely sophisticated, high-technology, well-financed Terrorists could do all of this. Terrorism is a global problem. We hear about it through all major news services all the time. Lou Dobbs, on CNN I think, has also stated that Al qaeda have infiltrated most of Eastern Europe. Europe must unite to form a "peace-keeping" core. Political stability is a prerequisite with respect to economic growth.

We are going off topic. But if what you say is true, that political stability is a prerequisite to economic growth then Lisbon should be voted yes in Ireland so they can become part of this group of Avengers against Terrorism!!!

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

Just about any news service can be critizised, by being influenced by advertisers or corporate owners, for example. The overall crucial point here is that we must all band together to fight the war on Terror. The Terrorists have managed to attack major European centers (London, Madrid...) and even New York and the Pentagon. Only extremely sophisticated, high-technology, well-financed Terrorists could do all of this. Terrorism is a global problem. We hear about it through all major news services all the time. Lou Dobbs, on CNN I think, has also stated that Al qaeda have infiltrated most of Eastern Europe. Europe must unite to form a "peace-keeping" core. Political stability is a prerequisite with respect to economic growth.

you do know that all of the media in Russia is owned by Putin and co. by this stage?

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you do know that all of the media in Russia is owned by Putin and co. by this stage?

evidence please

tlev

Here you go:

World Freedom of Press rankings 2007:

Russia (144th)

http://www.rsf.org/Eritrea-ranked-last-for-first-time,24025.html

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

evidence please

http://books.google.com/books?id=hKovfe8gc2UC

got to page 20

Much of the independent media have been swallowed up by the state or its proxies (such as natural gas monopoly Gazprom), and a not inconsiderable number of independent journalists most notably Anna Politkovskaya of Novaya Gazetta, have turned up dead

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

Here you go:

World Freedom of Press rankings 2007:

Russia (144th)

http://www.rsf.org/Eritrea-ranked-last-for-first-time,24025.html

RSF receives a substantial amount of funding from private companies... including one owned by George Soros, who has been convicted for insider trading.

Any real evidence?

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

RSF receives a substantial amount of funding from private companies... including one owned by George Soros, who has been convicted for insider trading.

Any real evidence?

Wait so you are saying that the RSF is being influenced by private companies? Where is YOUR evidence of this?

And surely by your logic, then if RSF is being influenced then the Russian media companies can just as easily be manipulated.