This snapshot, taken on
08/01/2011
, shows web content acquired for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search may not work in archived websites and contact details are likely to be out of date.
 
 
The UK Government Web Archive does not use cookies but some may be left in your browser from archived websites.
Advanced search
Top image
Global conversations
David Miliband
(Archived), London

Green Peace

Posted 08 May 2008 by David Miliband  |  9 comments

The day of a record oil price of $122 a barrel was a good day to give a lecture at the LSE on the geopolitics of high carbon dependence. The common feature of the resource crunch on fuel, food and water is the hydrocarbon economy. We are being hit in our pockets for being locked into the electricity, heat and transport systems that cause climate change, turning on its head the argument that we cannot afford to take action on climate. See what you think of the argument.



David Miliband
08 May 2008
Tags: ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 

Share this with:


Recent comments

>> Some very interesting issues were raised from your interview yesterday, not least the issue of...<<
Simon Barr
08 May 2008

>> Quote: "The EU-Russia dialogue is critical to energy security too: we are stronger if the EU speaks...<<
Sergey Poleshchuk, Moscow, Russia
08 May 2008

See all comments (10) ›

Have an opinion?




Comments:

1
>> Some very interesting issues were raised from your interview yesterday, not least the issue of whether develop countries would be morally obliged to grant asylum to citizens of the South who were victims of climate change. <<

Simon Barr
08 May 2008

2
>> Quote: "The EU-Russia dialogue is critical to energy security too: we are stronger if the EU speaks with one voice, engages multi-laterally rather than bilaterally." It is an excellent idea. However the EU hasn't common position on many issues. Does the EU support building of new huge gas pipelines from Russia to Europe? If no then let Russia know. Russia would direct its gas toward other markets or consume for own needs. If yes then all EU members should cooperate with Russia. Also, if the UE leaders think that Russia must supply Ukraine with gas for half market price then why not to supply the Russians with fuel efficient European made cars for half price as well? <<

Sergey Poleshchuk, Moscow, Russia
08 May 2008

3
>> The Elephant in the Room is that Emissions Trading - like the Carbon trading scheme mercifully dispatched today by DEFRA - is totally and utterly unworkable. As was said a few years ago at a traders forum "If you want to keep a donkey healthy, you don't regulate what comes out of it, you regulate what goes in". The ETS mechanism, and others like it, was brought to us by the same people responsible for the "Credit Crunch". It was created by intermediaries for intermediaries. Need I say more? There is another way of doing it - and I say this as someone with a background as a Director of a global energy exchange - which is to apply levies to the energy value of carbon, and reinvest the proceeds directly in the forward production of renewable energy projects. <<

Chris Cook
08 May 2008

4
>> Incredible! How come you know the price of oil when the Prime Minister didn't have a clue what it was during PMQ's yesterday? <<

Curly
09 May 2008

5
>> Are we winning the battle against climate change? The north has the moral duty to help the south develop and is doing so. This means, among other things that millions of people will have access to the comfort we are used to and take for granted: electricity,fridges, ovens, light, PCs, etc. All this will inevitably increase green gas emissions. Will we ever win this battle? <<

Carla Piaggio
11 May 2008

6
>> Like Carla Piaggio who points out certain supply problems of electricity I recognise that in the future the supply issues are going to be huge with a rising population not only in the UK but in the world altogether. The Low -Carbon Economy is a controversial solution taking into consideration that it might involve having to go without certain comforts every other day like a shower, a drive in the car and even food. The world population is at approximately 6 billions and maybe halfing the figure would do the job. <<

Catherine
12 May 2008

7
>> Frightenly unAmerican. Stop it now. <<

David Jackson
13 May 2008

8
>> Interesting lecture, I quoted you in my exam last Tuesday, so thanks for that. It's comforting to see you acknowledge climate change as the great market failure! I would love to see the discourse turn away from looking at states as if they are equal. Some have more people than others, how about a per capita cap calculated by the IPCC? How is it worked out right now, how much each state needs to reduce? Then instead of trading those in violation should have to pay penalties which will be distributed to LDCs. Polluter pays principal is important, also if you want to pursue a neo-liberal logic on the economy why don't you go all the way and advocate open borders for people as well as capital and trade? Smith knew that it won't work without the free movement of labour! Not for the poor anyway! <<

Jana Mills
14 May 2008

9
>> Surely the most worrying concern is the incredibly low percentage of the total world population who actually ARE dependant on the hydrocarbon economy. If the other 95 give or take of the world's population were financially able to be dependant upon this fossil/diminishing resource, we can only speculate as to the resulting climate change which might have ensued. As it is, to provide bio-fuel in such quantity as required to fuel the world's advantaged societies must require a land mass greater than that capable of providing us all with the food we need? Would it be too much of an inconvenience for anyone to consider a completely different fuel format - methane, for example, the more of us there are, the more of it there is...! <<

Linda Beamish
16 May 2008

Add a Comment *Required fields
Comments are closed for this entry.