An independent Scotland will ban nuclear weapons, we are told. Top stuff. I’m all for it.
Nuclear weapons are amoral and have the potential to kill millions of people if they were ever used, as well as belonging to an age now past.
But there is a bigger threat to global peace and wellbeing lurking in Scottish waters, one which the more head-in-sand types in the SNP leadership and UK government are all too eager to embrace.
Scotland is about to undergo a second oil boom apparently. At least according to the First Minister.
And in the week that a leaked document accepting the idea of change and adaption as a central component of any society made the headlines, we are told that things shall always be as they have been, for ever more. The boom becomes a beat and the beat goes on.
What is pretty clear is that we can’t just turn off the oil industry. The Scottish economy would collapse, and thousands of people would lose their jobs. Like those peace-loving Swedes exporting Bofors armaments far and wide with a shrug of their shoulders and and a nod to the employment statistics, it is easy enough to take away the pain of responsibility with a few spoons of relativism.
And it is incredibly tempting, because all those guns and all that oil pays for the welfare and investment in the public good which so many right thinking people want in a society.
But the kind of politicians who would take the oil and look away are the same type of person who would use the cheats on Championship manager, only to wonder why winning the European Cup carries no sense of achievement. It’s the Dorian Gray of natural resources, and for every single drop pumped out the official portrait at Bute House will turn a touch more grotesque. Or maybe Faust if you want. They’re all the same basic metaphor.
It’s our oil till we’ve sold it, and then it’s another man’s grievance.
There is no denying that the low-carbon world which we must inevitably transition to – either by design or by sheer necessity – will and must come. I’ve stood in the gallery at Holyrood and watched the whole parliament pat itself on the back over climate change legislation. You can call yourself world leading or pioneering as much as you like, but if you then choose to adopt a position which runs counter to received scientific wisdom and moral defensibility you will find yourself leading a world of one.
Because the emissions from an ever expanding Scottish oil industry will kill more people than Trident, be it in the form of air pollution or crop failure, flooding and conflict.
And because we must transition to a sustainable economy, does it not make sense to do it immediately? I’ll be voting Yes to change Scotland into the country it can be, not into an unthinking and morally indefensible oil state.
#1 by Nick on March 12, 2013 - 10:57 am
Stopping oil extraction ‘just like that’ will cause massive social upheaval and pain.
But as you say so will not stopping oil extraction.
The transition to a no (or low) carbon economy is going to take a second industrial revolution, on a par in scale with the first. I’d argue for a gradual reduction in oil extraction with a definite date set to stop production and the use of the resultant cash to fund this ‘green industrial revolution’.
We’d have to nationalise the oil while we’re it at it, and build a political consensus for an egalitarian and environmentally just society, strong enough to resist the power of the oil industry and it’s various state backers (the U.S.A. for one).
#2 by Doug Daniel on March 12, 2013 - 12:34 pm
“We’d have to nationalise the oil while we’re it at it, and build a political consensus for an egalitarian and environmentally just society, strong enough to resist the power of the oil industry and it’s various state backers (the U.S.A. for one).”
I sometimes wonder what the USA would do if Scotland decided to just leave the oil in the seabed and refuse to allow anyone else to access it. I can imagine arguments being made that “there is a global shortage of oil, and here’s Scotchland refusing to give access to their supplies. It’s in the interests of the rest of the world that companies get access to that oil.”
Maybe we’ll need to keep Trident after all!
#3 by Iain Menzies on March 12, 2013 - 1:42 pm
they would probably say something on the lines of ‘we get most of our oil from canada, we have more to spend on it if we have to get it from the middle east oh and have you heard of this fracking thing? its doing wonders for our gas prices.’
#4 by Doug Daniel on March 13, 2013 - 8:47 am
Lots of luck driving one of those stupid big American cars on natural gas!
I’m not talking about this happening tomorrow though, I mean in the future. And I’m being slightly facetious anyway!
#5 by Iain Menzies on March 13, 2013 - 12:24 pm
have you never seen dads army!? it’ll be fine!….so long as you dont stick a bayonet ou the top……
#6 by Indy on March 12, 2013 - 12:06 pm
It’s fine to make these arguments provided you are prepared in the short to medium term to impoverish people on a massive scale. I’m not.
#7 by Iain Menzies on March 12, 2013 - 1:43 pm
its not just about money tho! remember all those little old granies that would freeze to death in winter if we were this nuts.
#8 by Indy on March 14, 2013 - 9:22 am
Well yes – that’s part of it. The rich would manage if our economy collapsed, it would be the poor and vulnerable who would pay the price, as always.
#9 by Craig Gallagher on March 12, 2013 - 1:14 pm
Forget the jobs implications, what about infrastructure? Our entire model of urban living today is built around the car and using it to get from A to B. Despite all the furore surrounding the Totoyta Prius and its knockoffs, we are no closer to an electric car than we have ever been. And so what you’re talking about here is what Nick suggested, a second industrial revolution but on a much more massive scale. To expect Scotland to lead the way on that is ambitious. To imagine that taking a unilateral stance will in any way achieve anything is, unfortunately, unrealistic.
I am, of course, sympathetic. But the fact is that oil is a major source of energy for many parts of the world who don’t have access to the kind of renewable energy potential we do. It’s not hypocritical at all to sell oil overseas but at the same time use the proceeds to build a world-beating green energy economy other countries can use as a template. Not hypocritical unless, that is, you think oil itself is inherently evil. I’m afraid, as with anything, it is the uses to which oil is put by humans that make it problematic, not the resource itself.
#10 by Doug Daniel on March 13, 2013 - 9:27 am
Well said. To perhaps put your last point a different way, it’s not extracting the oil that adds to our carbon footprint – it’s the burning of it. (Although I dare say folk in the Green party would disagree with that!) And let’s not forget that oil has uses other than fuel, even though about 84% of it is indeed used as fuel – crude oil is where we get most of our plastic and many pharmaceuticals come from oil derivatives.
I think oil is perhaps the main thing that makes me a member of the SNP rather than the Greens. Living and working in Aberdeen, I’ve been surrounded by the oil industry my entire life (barring the 4 year blip in Weegieland). Dad worked on a support vessel for about 30 years, my first post-university job was with Schlumberger, and I currently work for a company that provides software for energy companies – and while some of our customers are mining companies, the overwhelming majority of projects our software is used in are oilfields. I struggle to think of many of my friends who don’t work in the industry in some capacity, from project managers for oil companies, right down to recruiters who recruit pretty much exclusively for the oil industry. Even as a computer programmer, every Aberdeen job I’ve ever interviewed for has been with a company that provides software for oil companies. Suddenly turning off the oil taps, so to speak, would be devastating for the Aberdeen economy (although I suspect many companies, like my own, already serve customers in oilfields outside the Scottish sector of the North Sea…)
(Some might try to draw parallels with the jobs at Faslane and how removing the nukes would devastate their local economy, but it will be far easier and quicker to convert Faslane into Scotland’s main naval base than it will be to turn Aberdeen from the oil capital of the EU into the renewable energy capital of the EU).
Of course, many people who work in the oil industry would see their skills pretty easily transferable to the renewable energy industry – I certainly expect my company’s software to be used for the construction of renewable energy installations eventually – but we’re not there yet. Until we are, then it’s unrealistic to think we can just suddenly put a halt on the North Sea oil industry (and is there much point when Norway shows no signs of doing the same?) As you say Craig, it’s much better to plan for a phase out, using the profits of the oil to fund the investment that brings us towards that.
#11 by Iain Menzies on March 13, 2013 - 12:29 pm
serious question this.
i dont know many people that work supporting north sea oil, i had an uncle (recently passed away) who worked on the rigs…tho he lived in Saltcoats and a friend who is a merchant seaman working on the boats.
putting aside the pros and cons of oil…or questions about how much there is how much we can get how long we want to get it for and all the rest…does it not concern you just how dependent aberdeen is on oil?
I ask because i live in an ex mining town…a town where the mines were shut down under attle not thatcher and you can still see the impact of that loss of local industry.
#12 by Dom on March 13, 2013 - 12:50 pm
Iain, I think that is a point well made. Economic diversification is absolutely key to building a sustainable economy, and what Scotland and Aberdeeen cannot do is use oil to solve all ills. Is the same twisted logic as expecting the financial sector in England to somehow support the whole of the UK indefinitely.
#13 by Doug Daniel on March 14, 2013 - 2:07 pm
I would be concerned if there was no obvious scope for diversification, but due to the level of expertise in energy production here and the fact many skills could be transferred, there’s no reason why Aberdeen can’t be at the centre of the renewables industry. After all, it’s unlikely all those big oil companies are going to go “ah well, it was nice while it lasted but we’ll just have to call it quits now” when the oil runs out or they have to stop extracting it. They’ll switch to other energy production forms when they see the writing on the wall, and why not remain in Aberdeen where all that experience and infrastructure already exists?
(And from a more personal standpoint, I’m fortunate that software developers are needed in just about every industry you can think of – which is exactly why I did it at uni, despite my dad’s constant nagging that “engineering is such a broad subject”…)
#14 by Craig on March 13, 2013 - 5:28 pm
Type your comment here
There are already 15 million Compressed Natural Gas vehicles (not to be confused with LPG) around the world. Ford, GM and Chrysler are all expanding their range of CNG “stupid big American cars” and demand tripled in 2 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle
Indeed it’s rather ironic that the Shale Gas boom has reduced US carbon emissions by replacing coal while the reverse is happening in allegedly ‘green’ Europe. It’ll be Gas Hydrates next.
#15 by Iain Menzies on March 13, 2013 - 9:07 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21752441
you mean gas hydrates like that?