The headline debate at First Minister’s Questions today was the tiresome discussion over whether an independent Scotland would be a debt-ridden new Ireland or an oil-soaked new Norway.
I can’t imagine anyone outside the Chamber held avid interest in the discussion. Indeed, I daresay many INSIDE the Chamber tuned out and started thinking about their tea.
However, a new indirect dimension to the debate, and one worthy of significant debate, is that put forward by the Scottish Greens as Patrick Harvie is pressing the First Minister to support European plans for a moratorium on deepwater drilling, following the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Is the Green Party attempting to leverage a unique tragedy in order to push through its economy-sapping agenda or is there a safety-first, environmentally-crucial opportunity here to usher in the beginning of the end for dirty oil?
Presumably we can only ease ourselves off oil once a sustainable, reliable renewables industry is up and running. We are surely still behind the curve on that score, though sprinting ever closer, leading the world infact, towards the ultimate goal of wind and wave powering our nation. Consequently, I would expect drilling to continue until we can leave the remaining, no longer necessary, oil safely underground.
Furthermore, the BP disaster notwithstanding, there is no reason to expect a similar problem in the North Sea given the lack of evidence that oil companies are not complying with the very strict safety regulations that are in place across Europe.
However, Patrick Harvie’s argument may well be that drilling for oil is taking place to cover our energy needs after the point at which Scotland can look forward to being fully reliant on renewable power. At that point my argument falls down and a potential objection that jobs need to be safeguarded would make me sound as silly as those who say we need billion-pound nuclear weapons in order to keep a number of people in the West of Scotland employed. After all, the best Carbon Capture System is not drilling for oil in the first place, even if it would make Texas-of-the-North Aberdeen an economically chilly place to be.
And what of the SNP’s aim for Scotland to be powered entirely by renewable energy by 2025? Does this not contradict the claims that Scotland can be the new Norway, as Stephen has pointed out? Well, yes and no I would suggest. There’s no reason why Scotland can’t power itself with Renewables and sell its oil abroad, though I accept that that is a dubious approach to fighting Climate Change.
So I fear the Greens are opportunistically playing up the possibility of another disaster on the scale of the Gulf of Mexico but at the same time making perfectly valid points about how much oil Scotland really needs to pull out of its seabed. This is not to forget that there is no way one can play up too far the environmental risks that are at stake.
It’s Scotland’s Oil. Yes, it is, but at what point do we decide to just leave our oil safely underground?
UPDATE – Caledonian Mercury has a good piece on the matter and the full exchange between Patrick Harvie and Alex Salmond
#1 by Patrick on September 30, 2010 - 4:08 pm
Powering ourselves with renewables and selling oil abroad isn’t a dubious way to fight climate change. It’s a dubious way to ignore climate change while trying to look like one of the good guys.
The reality is that the world already has more than enough known reserves of fossil fuels, including oil, to bring about the irreversible, runaway climate change that the Scottish and UK Governments both say they want to avoid. If we burn it all, we’re toast. If we burn as much as 60% of the known reserves, we’re probably toast.
So why exactly are we trying to find more? If at least 40% of the reserves we know about needs to stay in the ground, it should be the 40% which we can’t do anything about when it’s burned, and that means the oil. CCS might one day allow some limited use of coal, but there’s no technique for capturing and storing emissions from transport, which is where most of the oil will be going.
It may be Scotland’s oil… but regardless of the ownership we just can’t afford to burn the stuff.
#2 by Jeff on September 30, 2010 - 4:32 pm
Thanks very much for the comment Patrick, I am sure my internal struggle was evident from the post. A struggle that many a person and nation will have to go through if we’re going to get through this challenge.
You’ve provided the key fact that I was missing and trying to straddle with both halves of my post. Burning 60% of the known reserves we already have is enough to finish our planet off so why drill for more?
It’s a great question. If only we had someone who could ask the First Minister it? No, wait… *
So, yes, I’m certainly convinced and when to down tools is an unexplored debate that is probably long, long overdue.
(*Note, I’ve not seen Question Time so didn’t see the question and nor did I see the FM’s answer, if an ‘answer’, rather than obfuscation, was even given)
#3 by Andy Wightman on September 30, 2010 - 4:43 pm
George Monbiot lays out why such deep water prospecting is stupid (indeed any new prospecting for oil or coal).
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/09/27/looking-for-trouble/
#4 by Jeff on September 30, 2010 - 4:55 pm
Thanks Andy, very good article to link to, well worth a read. I think I lazily and conveniently assumed that when the oil runs out would be the optimal time to move to renewables.
I wonder how many people grasp how challenging this is all going to be and just how drunk on oil we all actually are. I wonder what the tipping point will be.
(PS Like your blog. I’ve added it to the links)
#5 by Kate on September 30, 2010 - 6:12 pm
Good post and I think reflects a lot of people’s uncertainty over the oil/renewables issue. Even if Scotland opposed to deepsea drilling, what control would we be able to exercise over activity and licences etc? Concern about renewables is how we need to invest in skills etc in people so that we have those to export as well as our technology.
#6 by Patrick on September 30, 2010 - 8:15 pm
#5
Agreed, at present we have little control over deepsea drilling. However the political impact of a Scottish Government coming out in favour of the moratorium would be hugely influential ahead of the expected vote in the European Parliament next week. Sadly we have a Government which still seems to regard oil simply as an economic resource to be exploited.
#7 by Tocasaid on September 30, 2010 - 8:58 pm
There’s no reason why Scotland could not emulate Norway. All it takes is the political will. Using (or not) our oil resources should not stand in the way of independence. Is the alternative of staying part of a conservative and warmongering ‘UK’ gonna be any better for the planet.
We should be realistic – oil will remain important for the foreseeable future. Better that an independent Scotland harnesses this wealth to ease our transition to renewable than this considerable wealth is swallowed up by a hungry Westminster only to be converted into new aircraft carries, Trident missiles and other/continuing hostile adventures in the third world.
Norway remains a good model of all the above.
#8 by Jeff on September 30, 2010 - 10:15 pm
“There’s no reason why Scotland could not emulate Norway.” I’m not sure you’ve grasped the point of the post Tocasaid, but if it’s any comfort I don’t think you are alone.
There is a reason why Scotland should not emulate Norway, if not necessarily ‘could not’. That reason is that drilling for and then burning oil is a potentially unwise and dangerous course of action.
Using oil to create a wealthy, healthy independent Scotland may be better than being shackled to a UK that does not serve Scotland in an optimum capacity but we should limit our aspirations to less than the maximum? Perhaps independence should be renewables-fuelled rather than oil fuelled? Might not be as catchy but it sounds like it’s greener.
I also think Scotland can be independent without another country having blazed a similar trail for us already, be it Ireland, Norway, Iceland or whoever. Is it not best that we stop trying to emulate other countries but just try to enrich ourselves?
#9 by cynicalHighlander on September 30, 2010 - 10:54 pm
Oh dear! We have those who think that money grows on trees and that we can live without oil it reminds me of when the RSPB started buying up land removing ‘non’ native trees altering the environment and then wondered why certain species declined.
Oil has allowed the world economy to expand at the fastest time in human history by replacing human power by fossil power. 1 barrel of oil contains enough energy to replace 4 men working 12 hour shifts for a year. If one wishes to get into renewables then one requires oil to do that initially to get us up to speed and that will never happen whilst we are tied to Westminster which has bankrupted the UK aided by the banking sector.
http://newsnetscotland.com/economy/696-rediscovering-oil-a-from-rags-to-riches-story-
And for the peak deniers all fossil fuels are finite and a large quantity will be left below our feet EROEI.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6994
#10 by oldnat on October 1, 2010 - 1:04 am
Oil is extensively required for other purposes than burning though. Are we seriously suggesting wiping out plastics?
#11 by James on October 1, 2010 - 9:57 am
Good point. In fact, I suspect future generations will say “You just bloody burnt it? Are you kidding?”
So yes, hopefully we’ll get to a point where we’re not burning it anymore but still using it wisely – ideally before that means scouring for the deepwater dregs.
#12 by Stuart Winton on October 1, 2010 - 2:11 am
“There’s no reason why Scotland can’t power itself with Renewables and sell its oil abroad…”
Ouch! I’m not surprised that Patrick latched onto that one, Jeff, which perhaps spoilt an otherwise decent post. Although in fairness you did caveat your remarks above in the full sentence.
But that would surely represent nimbyism on a global scale, and presumably wouldn’t really protect Scotland from the macro effects of global warming anyway?
It would thus represent little more than environmental grandstanding on the global stage.
Of course, our addiction to oil can no more be reversed overnight than our problem as an alcoholic nation can – and there’s a metaphor about hangovers in there somewhere – but there’s something hypocritical about the likes of Alex Salmond at FMQs yesterday in the same breath blabbering on about the virtues of Norway’s oil fund and then saying he’s been having talks with the Norwegians about renewables.
#13 by Jeff on October 1, 2010 - 10:45 am
Yep, fair enough Stuart, in retrospect it’s a bit silly of me to say “there’s no reason why” such and such and then providing a great big reason why it’s a bad idea.
Although I’m not advocating it, I would expect business and the majority of political will to be in favour of selling until every last drop is squeezed out the ground.
And the comparison to alcohol is a good one; that is, relatively speaking, a more minor problem but look how difficult it is for each of the Scottish parties to come to an agreement on the best way ahead, despite all of them agreeing it’s a big problem.
It’s becoming clearer, as I sense you agree, that any Norway-style ‘fund’ that Scotland builds up has to be renewables-based rather than oil-based. How do you arrange for the ~£80bn of investment though from risk-averse companies and banks who are counting every last penny?
We could ask the cash-rich Saudis but somehow I don’t think they’ll share the enthusiasm to wean the country off oil!
#14 by Lost Highlander on October 1, 2010 - 11:18 am
Renewables will give Scotland energy security to a point but to wean ourselves off Oil is proving to be very hard.
Oil not only powers our ability to move around it houses us, allows our communications to work and even feeds us. It has been the biggest driver of society we have had and its simplicity to store is one of its greatest assets.
Until we can replace like for like then Oil will remain essential. And from a political view Oil is essential to great Britain never mind Scotland. Without the funds flowing into the exchequer from not only the North sea but the myriad buisnesses involved in its searching, extraction and distillation then we would be in a very dire place.
So we keep searching for Oil if not we will lose a lot of the countries capital and certainly lose a lot of influence to those countries who do have Oil.
#15 by dcomerf on October 1, 2010 - 11:29 am
An independent Scotland will be oil fueled in the first instance and should use this one-time energy resource aggressively to build continuous energy sources. The point here though is that this is perfectly possible with existing reserves and needs no new prospecting.
The UK may now be a net importer – but Scotland certainly isn’t.
#16 by Tocasaid on October 1, 2010 - 5:31 pm
As far as I can see it, Harvie’s question only concerned deep drilling and not the use of oil for burning or any other activity – including plastics!
It would be gross stupidity not to use the oil wealth to provide a springboard for cleaner alternatives.
As things stand, Norway is forging ahead and Scotland if still tied to the backward ‘UK’ will be left all the poorer – much to the detriment of the environment (anywhere) and our people.
#17 by John Ruddy on October 1, 2010 - 9:56 pm
The biggest issue I see with Alex Salmonds use of the Norweigan fund as an example is that he is double counting. In order to balance the books in independant Scotland, he needs to Oil money for revenue, but then suggests saving it in a fund like Norway!
And thats before we get onto the hypocrisy of a 80% cut in scotlands CO2 emissions in a country producing so much oil.
Pingback: Season of tiffs & mellow fruitiness… – Scottish Roundup