Who pimped the attack on Libya?

[kristopher]

Mods: I felt EE was the most appropriate place for this since most scholars agree that there are tremendous social implications for society our energy choices. This type of issue is one that is too often omitted from the nuclear/renewable discussion. - K


It makes a bit more sense if someone in a position of great influence was desperate to change the news cycle.

I wrote this speculatively on the 19th:

"All policy moves, including war, are a product of a coalition of interests that band together to form a majority, so there is room for both support of military action based on genuine concern for the Libyan people's struggle to shake of a dictator, and a power block motivated by financial interests.

Of course, there is no way to "prove" cultural dynamics like this are responsible for a decision to go to war, but to not be aware of the dynamics of power that are influencing our culture is probably a bad thing for the basic concept behind a democratic form of government.

The nuclear industry has leaders. They have over the years spent literally tens of billions of mostly taxpayer dollars waging a multifaceted campaign to position nuclear power as the "energy of choice" for the next 100 years.

I certainly think the public reaction to Fukushima is, in their minds, sufficient threat that they would throw their weight behind ANY coalition advocating ANY act that is not a threat to their interests and that offered the potential for shifting the focus away from discussion of what is threatening them."
<end>

Then I saw this and thought it worth posting:

French Nuclear Industry Faces The Heat From Japan's Disaster

(YTWHW.com) - French energy companies, major global players in nuclear energy, were bracing Monday for a tougher business environment, as the worsening picture in Japan revived a global debate on nuclear safety that could compromise the nuclear revival around the world.

Shares in French state-controlled nuclear engineering firm Areva SA (CEI.FR) dropped as much as 9.6% to EUR31.50 early Monday, while shares in French state-controlled power group and the world's biggest nuclear operator Electricite de France SA (EDF.FR) were down 3.3% to EUR29.58. Areva and EDF have so far declined comment on the Japan tragedy.

"The whole accident will lead to strong debate on nuclear safety all over the world," a Paris-based trader explained, noting that the debate may lead to a slowdown of the development of nuclear projects.

The market's reaction Monday suggests inventors believe French companies face a tougher sell after the Japan tragedy and that countries considering new developments may not be very discriminating if they put projects on deep-freeze. While major French nuclear companies have been mute, French government officials spent much of the weekend touting the country's strong nuclear safety record. EDF, Areva and other French companies are currently pitching their technology to India, Saudi Arabia and other growing centers.

http://www.ytwhw.com/2011/0314/French-Nuclear-Industry-Faces-The-Heat-From-Japan-s-Disaster.html

France to Overhaul its Nuclear Industry
March 17th, 2011 by EBR_EBdaily

Since the revival of nuclear power, all countries are in a race to develop their nuclear power industry. Keeping with this trend, France has recently announced its plans to carry out an overhaul of its nuclear power industry. In plans drawn up by President Nicolas Sarkozy’s nuclear policy council, the country has launched a much awaited overhaul of its nuclear industry in an attempt to increase and strengthen the competitiveness of one of its leading industrial sectors in global markets...

http://energybusinessdaily.com/power/nuclear-power-2/france-to-overhaul-its-nuclear-industry/



This is hosted at the right wing AEI, but as a description of what the "French nuclear industry" consists of, it seems valid.

The French Civilian Nuclear Industry After the Roussely Report
By Richard Cleary | Federation of American Scientists' Public Interest Report
Tuesday, March 15, 2011

...On Sunday, February 21, 2011, the French Council of Nuclear Policy met to discuss the recommendations of the Roussely Report, a strategic review of the French civilian nuclear industry completed in June 2010. The Roussely Report was intended to chart a corrective course for "Equipe France," a group of Paris-based corporations involved in the export of nuclear expertise and technology.

...Commissioned by President Nicolas Sarkozy and chaired by former CEO of Electricité de France (EDF) François Roussely, the Roussely Report was highprofile and high-stakes. The report was greatly anticipated, and its potential contents became a point of lively discussion in the months leading to the July 2010 release of its 23-page summary.3 Beyond proposing the integrated French bid mentioned above, the report clarifies the roles of important industrial actors and explores ways to increase coordination. The Roussely Report provides a frank and sweeping assessment of the structure and strategy of the French nuclear system, advising a more centralized and consolidated export model. As indicated above, however, in a highly competitive global nuclear energy market, it is unclear whether a unitary French bid, an "Equipe France," stands the best chance of success.

The Roussely Report-and French nuclear export strategy generally-is best understood in light of the failed December 2009 bid by a French consortium for a $20 billion contract for nuclear reactor construction in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). ..

http://www.aei.org/article/103320

Now, who was it that took the lead in this grand Libyan adventure we have joined in on?

[KurtNYC]

1. Aren't they the guys who sold us that war in Vietnam ?

Hmmmmm.

[kristopher]

2. No. Vietnam was primarly motivated by antiCommunist zealots

Remember the Domino Effect?

The only financial motive I ever recall being associated with Vietnam was speculation about the potential oil off their coast. But given the state of the global oil industry at the time IMO that is highly improbable.

France had left Vietnam and had no interest in the region that I recall.

The nuclear power industry, however, is operating on a 60-100 year planning horizon which is the overall life expectancy of new plants. That means they are trying right this minute to lock in a position in the energy markets worth many hundreds of trillions of today's dollars over that time frame.

Fukushima has placed that established plan under dire threat.

[flamingdem]

3. Oil costs are going to skyrocket with Japan's new needs, the French are

les pimpes I suppose.

[kristopher]

4. I hadn't heard that. I assumed the demand was trashed more than refining.

Do you have any more information? About the timeline line perhaps. I can see where rebuilding might have a small impact but if you can recall where that came from I'd like to see it.

[Nihil]

5. The usual suspects.

I see what you are saying (and yes, why you wanted to post it in E/E)
but don't particularly agree.

I see the Libyan "front" as being driven primarily by the oil industry
ably assisted & abetted by the arms industry (in cooperation with the
armed forces/mercenary wing). Cameron, Obama & Sarkozy are all just
the puppets of these major corporations (as were Blair & Bush on the
preceding episodes, Bush I/Thatcher/Clinton/Major on earlier jaunts, etc.).

The decreasing "focus" in the US news cycle has less to do with explicit
manipulation than with the long-time issue over attention spans.

World news is still keeping a very close eye on Fukushima (well, as close
as they can given the combination of genuine health risks and the widely
varying quality of sources). US news knows that putting "the same thing"
on the page day in/day out will just result in lost sales and they view
"sales" as a far higher priority than "news".

I acknowledge that there is an overlap between your favourite bad guys
and the above but think that this is due more to the scope of such
corporations than any specific strategy. YMMV.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

6. How to address the problem of timing?

There appears to be a void in the decision-making process that centers around the timing. Why did it happen so far past the point where it was likely to be efficacious? That is what has everyone puzzles and the only parties to profit by the timing were those whose lives were saved (may peace be with them) and those whose economic hides were being ripped to shreds by the 24/7 global fixation on Fukushima.

[Nihil]

8. Correlation causation

I'm not saying you are 100% wrong (remember the "good day to bury bad news" quip?)
just that I think it is stretching ...

:shrug:

[CRH]

7. After seeing the drastic change of focus, ...

in the reporting, it wasn't long that I concluded there was a bigger reason for the sudden change in the foreign policy position. For three days the nuclear crisis has been all but blacked out, and many of the reporters on the ground in Japan have been pulled out. Last night in three hours of news I saw less than twenty minutes coverage on the Japan disaster, and only half of that was on the nuclear situation.

It is obvious CNN is pimping the war to the exclusion of Japan, and the general coverage of all the networks isn't just divided, it has systematically moved coverage away from the nuclear problem. No one is pressing for the IAEA, the US Government, Tepco, or anyone else for accurate readings on the ground in Japan, leaving the only source of contamination levels the newly minted MIT site, which continues to down play all danger. The unofficial MIT site continues to contest the only other source of contamination levels, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), inferring they are confusing micro and milli Sieverts for reported readings near the plant that are far elevated, from the levels Tepco and in extension MIT are reporting.

The IAEA is finally on the ground and has taken readings, stated there are a couple areas of 'high radiation', yet released no locations or figures. What we do know, is, many countries have recommended evacuation of their citizens, the press has pulled most all of their reporters, (for safety reasons)? We know the US military is considering mandatory evacuation of military families from a military base far outside the 50KM zone, and TV screens are filled with contrails of cruise missiles and tracer bullets while ignoring obvious signs of increasing contamination on the ground in Japan. We know that while the local food has been banned for sale, and a meter is shown to measure 300 somethings on the dial (uSI?) while hovering over spinach, there is no discussion of the difference in safe radiations levels for internal consumption through food and water.

So who pimped the attack on Libya? IMO, a combination of the French and the US Government, in an attempt to change the news cycle. Obama can't sell a couple hundred more nuclear plants to the public if they see first hand the lasting environmental problem in Japan, the cost of clean up, and the corrupt practices of the industry. When people come to realize the cost of liability has been socialized because no capitalist company will underwrite liability of nuclear energy, when the ultimate cost analysis is astronomical and the free market will not invest in nuclear power, then the government must control the information if government subsidy is to underwrite the industry. Thus cruise missiles and tracer bullets for entertainment, tonight.

In all, how dangerous has it become, when the obvious can not be spoken, and no one is even near enough to speak it.